The identification of salient beliefs which influences the behavior of an employee to cooperate within a strategic alliance : a case study at the Marine Maintenance Establishment

(1)

The identification of salient beliefs which influences the

behavior of an employee to cooperate within a strategic

alliance.

A case study at the Marine Maintenance Establishment

Author: Arthur Quant

Student number: 10884130

Version: 1.0

Date of submission: 21-01-2017

Qualification: EPMS – strategy track Institution: Amsterdam Business School Supervisor: Dr. Ir. J. Kraaijenbrink

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Arthur Quant who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

The Dutch Ministry of Defense (MoD) is facing decreasing budget and is becoming less self-sufficient. This increases the necessity to form strategic alliances. By doing this the MoD can access resources and gain power to carry out their task. To increase the chance of success, the MoD needs to know which factors drive the motivation of employees to cooperate within a strategic alliance. This thesis uses the construct of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985) to find out which types of beliefs are salient and influence the cooperative behavior of employees in a strategic alliance between firms.

To answer the research question, a qualitative approach was used by conducting a case study in which the Marine Maintenance Establishment (DMI) is examined.

Information is gathered from first-hand experience by taking fifteen in-depth interviews with employees of the DMI, who are already participating in strategic alliances. Six salient beliefs were identified that influence the behavior to cooperate within strategic alliances. These were the opportunity to learn, the trust employees have in the strategic partner, having the right alliance-skills, experiencing job satisfaction, opportunistic behavior, and the lack of capabilities of the own organization. Two beliefs are salient when the employee experiences a direct influence in his job activities (use of resources), or when they have experienced a negative situation (organizational power).

This study contributes with the identification of salient beliefs that influences the behavior to cooperate within a strategic alliance. Managers can use the outcome of this study to influence the level of cooperation of the employee in a positive way. They can do this by paying more attention to identified salient beliefs that are important for the

(6)

1. Introduction

1.1. Introduction of the subject

The Dutch Ministry of Defense (MoD) faces the problem of decreasing budget and has the task to carry out their core business more effectively and efficiently. Besides this development, the Dutch MoD is also facing an increase of resource dependency. That increases the necessity to collaborate with Ministries of Defense of other countries, and with the private sector (In het belang van Nederland 2013, Defensie Industrie Strategie 2013). The Dutch MoD is becoming less self-sufficient which increases the resource dependency with respect to others. This trend creates uncertainty in the taking of decisions within the organization, and therefore the formation of strategic alliances contributes to reduce uncertainties (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978, Varadarajan and Cunningham 1995). Therefore, a reason for the Dutch MoD to form a strategic alliance is based on resource interdependences because there is a joint dependence on reducing uncertainty and enhancing the performance of the organizations (Gulati and Sytch 2007). This strategic alliance is based on control and power where an organization uses the inter-organizational network to gain power and access resources (Bae and Gargiulo 2004).

In the literature there exist many definitions of strategic alliances (Varadarajan and Cunningham 1995, Chan, Kensinger, Keown and Martin 1997). This paper follows the definition of Varadarajan and Cunningham (1995, p.282) who define strategic alliances as “a manifestation of inter-organizational cooperative strategies, entail the pooling of skills and resources by the alliance partners, in order to achieve one or more goals linked to the strategic objectives of the cooperating firms”. This definition is used because it is in line with the reasons of the Dutch MoD to increase the number of alliances, namely the pooling

(7)

of resources with strategic partners with the purpose that they are still capable to perform their core tasks.

Several factors can increase the value of the strategic partners within the strategic alliance. The first factor for a strategic alliance to increase value of the strategic partners is to align knowledge with the decision-making authority (Chan et al. 1997). This means that by aligning knowledge the partners will be more cost-effective than a self-supporting organization. The knowledge can be general or codified information, like reports or data, which can easily be transferred without losing its value. Besides the aligning of

knowledge, there is also the transfer of know-how. The difference between the transfer of know-how and aligning knowledge is that the transfer of know-how is more difficult because this is accumulated by practical skills or expertise (Kogut and Zander 1992).

Strategic partners can learn from each other by successfully transferring knowledge and accessing internalized critical information or capabilities. The partners can use this knowledge and information for internalizing new technologies and know-how beyond firm boundaries (Khanna, Gulati and Nohria 1998). This is also the case for cross-sector

strategic alliances between the public sector and the private sector. Riege and Lindsay (2006) state that for establishing successful partnership it is fundamental that the public organization and their partners facilitate in effective and transparent two-way knowledge transfers. A strategic alliance in the context of this research is the strategic partnership that the Marine Maintenance Establishment (DMI) recently formed with the company Thales Netherlands. This partnership is based on the mutual goals and ambitions that the

sustainable strategic partnership creates more synergies, efficiency, and effectivity in the upkeep and maintenance of radar systems, sensors, and weapon systems delivered by Thales Netherlands for making this partnership a success.

(8)

A second factor for a strategic alliance to increase the value is through value chain alliances. Partners integrate in the vertical value chain which enables them to leverage differentiated, and specialized capabilities more effectively (Gulati and Lawrence 1999). A strategic alliance in the context of this research is the user-supplier-alliance between DMI and Pon Power BV. This alliance creates value within the value chain of a large

maintenance project of a Marine Vessel because it creates efficiencies, and executes the maintenance of propulsion systems of Marine Vessels more effectively in shortening the whole maintenance period. Pon Power BV uses resources of the DMI to deliver the final product, and to make this user-supplier-alliance a success. However, certain knowledge and skills are embedded in the tangible and intangible resources of the DMI (Grant and Baden-Fuller 2004). This means that the success of this alliance partly depends on the cooperation of employees within this strategic alliance.

A lot of research consist the factors that increase the cooperation between firms to benefit the outcome of the strategic alliance. Examples are trust-building measures where the partners provide technical or financial assistance (Narasimhan and Nair 2005), and frequent communication which increases the strength of the relationship between the strategic partners and therefore increase cooperation (Cravens, Piercy and Cravens 2000). However, little is known about the factors which drives the motivation and forms the intentions of the employees of organizations in the public sector to cooperate within these strategic alliances. For example, the motivation of an employee to transfer his know-how to the strategic partner. Employees are one of the key players in the execution of the agreement between the partners in the alliance. The human aspect alone can decide the success or failure of the strategic partnership (Lajara, Lillo and Sabater Sempere 2003). They can opportunistically use the strategic alliance which can cause a conflict (Khanna

(9)

et.al. 1998). When top managers in the public sector understand what these factors are, they can determine actions that could increase cooperation of their employees within the strategic alliance. This could help to maximize value of the partnership or provide reasons for not forming a partnership if the risk of failure will be too high.

To understand which factors drive the motivation of employees to cooperate within a strategic alliance, this paper uses the construct of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985). The intentions can be predicted on how to perform different kinds of behavior by forming attitudes towards behavior, subjective norms with respect to behavior, and perceived behavioral control over behavior (Ajzen 1991). Ajzen formed a framework of the theory of planned behavior that shows the different factors and their relation with each other. This structural diagram is showed in figure 1.

(10)

1.2. Research question

This paper aims to extend current literature by finding out which types of beliefs are salient, and therefore influences the cooperative behavior of an employee in a strategic alliance between firms. This results in the following research question:

Which salient beliefs of employees towards strategic alliances influence the behavior to cooperate within these alliances?

1.3. Method to answer research question

To answer the research question, a qualitative approach will be used by conducting a case study in which the DMI is examined. In-depth interviews are taken with employees of the DMI who are already participating in strategic alliances, to find out which salient beliefs influence their behavior to cooperate within a strategic alliance. Information, which is gathered from the interviews to answer the research question, is from first-hand

experience.

1.4. Contributions

Two contributions are made by conducting this study. The first is that managers can use the outcome of this study to influence the level of cooperation of the employee in a positive way. They can do this by paying more attention to the identified salient beliefs that are important for the employee. By doing this the manager can influence their intention to cooperate within a strategic alliance, and therefore increases the chance of success of the alliance.

The second contribution is that the outcome indicates that not all identified beliefs, which influence the cooperation behavior of employees, are the same or more nuanced as the factors that influence the chance of success of the strategic alliance at firm-level. For

(11)

instance, the use of resources only influences the behavior of an employee when it has a perceived benefit in their daily job activities.

1.5. Structure of the thesis

This paper is organized as follows: The second chapter contains a literature study with a description of several motivational theories and a discussion why the theory of planned behavior is best suited for this study. Based on the literature different types of beliefs are identified and used in the proposition. The third chapter describe the methods that are used in this research to test the generated proposition and to answer the research question. In the fourth section the research findings will be discussed, followed by the conclusion and discussion.

(12)

2. Theoretical framework and propositions

In this chapter, the theoretical framework and propositions are presented. First, several motivational theories are discussed and it will be explained why the construct of the theory of planned behavior is used to answer the research question. The theoretical framework of planned behavior identifies three types of beliefs (behavioral, normative and control beliefs); these beliefs will be discussed by using the strategic literature. Based on this literature, seven propositions will be presented to answer the research question. The factors in the propositions and their influence on the three constructs of planned behavior will be summarized in a theoretical framework (figure 3).

2.1. Motivational theories

Employees are willing to cooperate because they are motivated by extrinsic motivation or intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 1987). These types of motivation were used to develop different motivational theories (Vroom 1964, Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Malcnnis and Jaworski 1989, Ajzen 1991).

2.1.1. The theory of planned behavior

As presented in figure 1, a central factor in the framework of the theory of planned behavior is the intention of an individual to perform a given behavior. Ajzen (1991) explains the concept of intention by writing that this intention is assumed to capture the motivational factors that influences a behavior. Intention can indicate how hard people are motivated to put this behavior into practice. The intentions can be predicted on how to perform different kinds of behavior by forming attitudes towards behavior, subjective norms with respect to behavior, and perceived behavioral control over behavior (Ajzen 1991). Ajzen discovered empirical evidence that the motivation to perform a given

(13)

behavior is related to an appropriate set of salient beliefs about behavior. If beliefs are not salient, then it will not influence the motivation of the individual.

2.1.2. The theory of reasoned action

A motivational theory that is comparable to the theory of planned behavior is the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). In this theory, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) specify two determinants of intentions to perform a certain behavior. These two determinants, attitude towards the behavior and subjective norm, are similar to the theory of planned behavior. The theory of planned behavior adds an extra determinant to this model, namely the perceived behavioral control. This paper prefers the theory of planned behavior over the theory of reasoned action because in multiple (meta-)studies (Godin and Kok 1996, Cavozos 2013, Al-Debei, Al-Lozi and Papazafeiropoulou 2013) this third determinant added explanation power to the prediction of a given behavior or has a significant effect on the intention.

2.1.3. The motivational, opportunities, and ability model

A third motivational theory is the motivational, opportunities, and ability (MOA) model that is proposed by Malcniss and Jaworski (1989). The model contains that individuals process information based on their underlying motives, opportunities, and beliefs. According to the MOA model individuals engage in a determined behavior because motivation incorporates readiness, willingness, and desire (Malcniss, Moorman and

Jaworski 1991). Opportunity refers to the availability of time and favorable conditions that enables action to engage in a determined behavior (Malcniss et.al. 1991). Abilities are related to the skills and competences that influence the perception of the individual to engage a determined behavior (Malcniss et.al. 1991).

(14)

2.1.4. The expectancy theory

The last explained motivational theory is the expectancy theory that is developed by Vroom (1964). This theory explains the behavioral process of the reason why an

individual choose a type of behavior in favor over another option. In studies to explain how much effort is needed to perform the job and how individuals make the decision to take or quit a job or to enter or leave organization (Wanous, Keon, Latack 1983). Vroom identified three components: expectancy, instrumentality and valence. With these three components the theory explains that an individual can be motivated towards an outcome. In figure 2 is shown how these components are related to each other.

Figure 2: expectancy theory (Vroom 1964)

2.1.5. Choice of theory

In this study the framework and concept of the theory of planned behavior is used to answer the research question. The expectancy theory is too limited because of the fact that one criticism at this theory is that it is based on the assumption that people are only motivated by extrinsic reasons, like a reward or a promotion (Lawler and Porter 1967). The factors in this study will be based mainly on intrinsic motivation because in the public sector, like the Ministry of Defense, monetary rewards do not exist to increase the motivation to participate. As mentioned above the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action are quite similar, but the theory of planned behavior has an extra

(15)

determinant in his model that adds more explanatory power, namely perceived behavioral control. It is expected that for this study the control beliefs will give extra explanatory power in answering the research question. Finally, in this study, the opportunity factor in the MOA model will not help in answering the research question because opportunity refers to the availability of time and favorable conditions that enables action to engage in a determined behavior (Malcniss et.al. 1991). In this study the employees are already a part of the strategic partnership and they have the time and conditions to engage.

The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985) suggests that behavioral intention is the most powerful predictor to perform a certain behavior. This positive relationship is also tested by the researchers Venkatesh and Davis (2000). In their theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model they discovered evidence that the intention to use a new system is related in a positive way to the usage behavior. The suggestion of the theory of planned behavior that intention is the most powerful predictor to perform a certain behavior is also tested in other studies like the study of Al-Debei, Al-Lozi and

Papazafeiropoulou (2013). They discovered a significant relation between continuance participation intention and continuance participation behavior in the context of the reason for people to revisit social network sites by using the theory of planned behavior.

In general, Ajzen (1991) states that the more favorable the attitude and the subjective norm with respect to a behavior in a specific context is, and the greater the perceived behavioral control exists, the more positive an individual’s intention is to perform the behavior in the given context. This general rule is tested in prior research in a wide range of fields. For example, in the study of Greaves, Zibarras and Stride (2013) who discovered empirical evidence for the prediction of intentions to engage in

(16)

second example is the study of Al-Debei et.al. (2013) who discovered that the three constructs: attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are direct

predictors of continuance participation intention that explain why people return to social network sites. In the field of education Cheon, Lee, Crooks and Song (2012) use the theory of planned behavior construct and discovered that attitude, subjective norm, and behavioral control influenced their intention in a positive way to adopt mobile learning.

In his model, Ajzen (1991) discovered that there are different types of salient beliefs that belong to one of the three constructs. As mentioned before, a belief is not salient when it does not influence motivation of the individual. Ajzen (1991) calls this type of belief, in the case of attitude, a behavioral belief that belongs to the attributes that are needed to perform the behavior. These attributes towards a behavior are links of the belief to a certain outcome. In the case of subjective norms Ajzen (1991) discovered that

normative beliefs constitute the underlying determinants of subjective norms. These normative beliefs are concerned with the possibility that external factors, like individuals or groups, approve or disapprove the performance of a given behavior. The last type of salient beliefs is a control belief that provides the basis for perceptions of behavioral control. According to the theory of planned behavior these control beliefs can be based on past experience with the behavior or can be influenced by others.

A criticism to the theory of planned behavior is that the variables to explain a behavior are too limited, and should expand with additional variables (Conner and Armitage 1998). The criticism is that the theory is too rational and factors like affect and emotion are neglected.

(17)

2.2. Factors related to behavioral beliefs 2.2.1. Introduction of behavioral beliefs

In the framework of the theory of planned behavior is demonstrated that the central factor (intention) is a function of three independent factors. One independent factor is attitude, which refers to the locus of a person that is based on a positive or negative evaluation of the behavior in the given context (Ajzen 1991). In the context of this study attitude is defined as the overall appraisals, towards strategic alliances, of employees concerning their behavior in participating within these strategic alliances. Researchers in marketing and in strategic alliance literature conduct studies to find a relation between the roles of managers regarding to the cooperative behavior in strategic alliances. For example, Varadarajan and Cunningham (1995) proposed that top management attitudes towards strategic alliances are important antecedents of ﬁrms propensity to enter into strategic alliances. Gammoh and Voss (2013) proposed that a manager’s attitude towards brand alliances is positively related to the propensity to brand ally. The results of Gammoh and Voss (2013) showed empirical evidence that the attitude of a manager towards brand alliances has a strong, positive, and direct inﬂuence on the propensity to brand ally.

Based on the empirical findings in this prior research a proposition can be formulated that the favorable attitude of an employee to cooperate within a strategic alliance is related in a positive way to the intention to cooperate. For this case study it is more interesting to determine which factors influence the attitude towards the given behavior to cooperate within the strategic alliance. These factors are behavioral beliefs (Ajzen 1991) which belongs to the attributes that are needed to perform the behavior.

Multiple attributes of behavioral belief can be related to different forms of

(18)

individual perspective, the perceived benefits can present an egoistic aspect which is in line with the agency theory where one of the assumptions regarding to motivation is based on self-interest. This means that all individuals are only motivated by their personal monetary rewards like commissions, stock options, salaries etc. (Eisenhardt 1989). However,

monetary incentives can be counterproductive too because they can undermine the moral values (Bowles 2008). Thus, an altruistic aspect exists, regarding perceived benefits, which assumes that an individual is willing to increase the welfare of others and does not need any personal returns for its cooperation, therefor it is more driven by intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 1987).

In the public sector there are no monetary incentive systems to motivate employees to participate in the strategic partnerships. The employees in the Dutch MoD are not familiar with monetary incentives. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed in this paper, but in the limitations sector of this paper.

2.2.2. Opportunity to learn

In the strategic literature two factors are identified that influence the cooperation of the employee within the strategic alliance namely:

 the opportunity to learn from the strategic partner;

 the use of resources that helps the employee in their daily job.

At firm level the first perceived benefit of strategic alliances is based on the knowledge based-theory of alliance formation. This theory sees strategic alliances as a carrier for organizational learning in which firms are motivated to acquire knowledge from their partners (Grant and Baden-Fuller 2004). With these alliances, firms acquire new knowledge, skills and expertise to increase the competency of the firm (Hamel 1991). By

(19)

aligning knowledge, organizations can learn from each other and use this new knowledge for internalizing new technologies and know-how beyond firm boundaries (Khanna et.al. 1998). This organizational knowledge can be information that is easy to transfer but can also be know-how that is embedded in the organization. This embedded know-how is difficult to transfer (Kogut and Zander 1992). Besides the acquiring of new knowledge by organizational learning, strategic alliances also contribute to the efficiency in the

application of knowledge, which is the exploitation of organizational knowledge (Grant and Baden-Fuller 2004).

However, what is the effect of learning on the level of an employee? Concerning that we know that organizational learning creates value for the firms in the strategic alliance. Within this strategic alliance, employees are important to the execution of the agreement and the human aspect alone can decide the success or failure of the strategic alliance (Lajara, Lillo and Sabater Sempere 2003).

Based on the strategic literature a perceived benefit of a strategic alliance is organizational learning at firm level. This learning factor is a perceived benefit for employees who see the strategic alliance as a learning environment. The proposition is formed, like the firm-level ideas of Hamel (1991) and Grand and Baden-Fuller (2004), by the idea that the employee can increase their competencies by acquiring new knowledge skills and expertise. The strategic partner can contribute by helping the employee to apply this new knowledge.

This learning opportunity, for the employee, can be seen as a behavioral belief because the employee sees this opportunity to acquire knowledge from the strategic partner as a perceived benefit that can automatically influence the employee’s attitude towards the

(20)

behavior to cooperate within the strategic alliance. Therefore, the following proposition is presented.

P1: The belief of the employee that he or she can learn from the strategic partner has a positive effect on the intentions of an employee to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

2.2.3. Use of resources

The second attribute, which is related to the perceived benefits of a strategic alliance, is based on the resource-based view on strategic alliances. This view emphasizes the maximization of value of an organization by pooling and utilizing valuable resources (Das and Teng 2000). Therefore, strategic alliance contributes to the reduction of

uncertainties when firms are not self-sufficient (Varadarajan and Cunningham 1995). If firms are not self-sufficient in the vertical value chain, the firm can integrate partners in this chain to leverage differentiated and specialized capabilities more effectively (Gulati and Lawrence 1999).

From a resource-based perspective the perceived benefit of a strategic alliance is that value is created when resources supplementary and complementary align between the strategic partners (Das and Teng 2000). This need to align resources can come from resource dependency to other companies because the company itself is less self-sufficient. Self-insufficiency increases the uncertainty in the decision-making of the organization. (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978, Varadarajan and Cunningham 1995). Therefore, a reason to form a strategic alliance, is that there is a joint dependence with the means of reducing uncertainties and enhancing the performance of the organizations (Gulati and Sytch 2007).

Strategic alliances between technological companies can increase the innovative capabilities of the companies too (Lew and Sinkovics 2013). This relationship can create

(21)

new knowledge through endogenous R&D efforts, and the ability of one partner to adopt existing technologies that are developed by the other partner (Hagedoorn and Duysters 2002). Sher and Yang (2005) discovered that the innovative capability and R&D clustering effects along the vertical chain have a positive effect on the firm’s performance. So

innovative capability, seen from a resource based view, can be seen as a critical factor to achieve strategic competitiveness because it can address performance differences between firms (Conner and Prahalad 1996)

Based on the strategic literature, a perceived benefit of a strategic alliance is the resource complementarity to increase the value in the vertical chain at firm level. A second perceived benefit is the decrease of uncertainties in the performance of the organization. The last discussed benefit is the achievement of competitive advantage because of the increase of innovative capabilities. These perceived benefits are also valid for employees who use the resources of the strategic partner in their own workplace and within the agreement of the strategic alliance. Based on the firm level ideas of Das and Teng (2000) and Gulati and Sytch (2007), the employee adds value to his or her job activities by pooling and utilizing resources with the strategic partner. This alliance has the intention that it reduces uncertainties and enhances the employee’s job-performance.

The use of resources within the job description of the employee can be seen as a behavioral belief because this attribute can be valued by the employee as a perceived benefit that automatically influences the attitude towards the behavior to cooperate within the strategic alliance. Therefore, the following proposition is presented.

P2: The belief of the employee that the use of resources from the strategic partner adds value to the job activities has a positive effect on the intentions of an employee to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

(22)

2.3. Factors related to normative beliefs 2.3.1. Introduction of normative beliefs

In the theory of planned behavior, the second construct are the subjective norms, see figure p.5. A subjective norm is the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior in the given context (Ajzen 1991). In the context of this study, subjective norm can be defined as social pressure of the organization or the top

management that are perceived by the employee. This social pressure will be a positive or a negative influence at the intention to participate in strategic alliances. In another theory the positive effect of subjective norm on intention is also described. In their theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model, Venkatesh and Davis (2000), stated empirical evidence that subjective norm has a positive direct effect on intention.

In his study, Ajzen (1991) discovered that normative beliefs constitute the

underlying determinants of subjective norms. From an organizational perspective there are two factors that can be related to a social pressure that influences the cooperation of the employee within the strategic partnership. These two factors are:

 organizational power that one organization has over the other organization;  internal policies that are devised by the upper echelon of the organization.

2.3.2. Organizational power

Organizational power in a strategic alliance is, based on the resource dependency theory, a situation in which a firm holds power over other firms (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). This power exists because one firm owns or controls valuable and scare resources, which the other firms are seeking for. Firms, which decide to enter a strategic alliance and select the right form of alliance, also convey organizational power implications (Todeva

(23)

and Knoke 2005). This sort of power can increase the chance of failure when one partner in a strategic alliance has more power and control over another organization and resources (Oliver 1990). In their study, Bleeke and Ernst (1995) stated that more than 80 percent of the international alliances ended in an acquisition and this was usually executed by the stronger partner. Factors for this outcome were firm size, power of the board of directors, and inequalities in distributing the benefits produced by the strategic alliance.

Based on the strategic literature, organizational power of the strategic partner within a strategic alliance has a negative influence on the durability of the strategic alliance. Like the firm-level idea that organizational power increases the chance of failure of a strategic alliance (Oliver 1990), this can also be the case for employees who face a dominant partner in the partnership. The power of the partner and inequalities in

distributing the benefits (Bleeke and Ernst 1995) can lead to the point that the employee does not want to participate in the strategic alliance or starts to shirk within the activities of the partnership. For example, the dominant partner forces the employee to make more working hours but this conflicts of other working activities.

Organizational power of the strategic partner can be seen as a normative belief because it is an external factor that can influence the behavior of the employee to cooperate within the strategic partnership. Therefore, the following proposition is presented.

P3: The belief of the employee that the strategic partner has power over him or her has a negative effect on the intentions to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

2.3.3. Internal strategy of the organization

The second factor, which is related to perceived social pressure, is the internal strategy of an organization to form strategic alliances. This internal strategy is devised by

(24)

the upper echelon of the organization, which is based on the upper echelon theory (Hambrick and Mason 1984). This theory explains that the organization is a reflection of its top managers. Meaning that the strategic processes of the organization, like forming strategic alliances, are decisions that are detached from the insights of the top managers. So for example in the Dutch Ministry of Defense there are documents written by the upper echelon (In het belang van Nederland 2013, Defensie Industrie Strategie 2013), which are the basis for internal strategy that the different departments of the Dutch Ministry of Defense have to look for opportunities in their process to form a strategic alliance or multiple strategic alliances. When there is consensus in the upper echelon or teams that make strategic decision about the formulated strategy, then this will have a positive effect on the organizational performance (Dess 1987, Dooley and Fryxell 1999).

The internal strategies that are formulated by the upper echelon can be formulated in accordance with different approaches. One approach of strategy formulation is the resource-based approach. This approach argues that internal resources, rather than the market environment, should provide the basis for strategy formulation (Grant 1991). Only when the costs of these resources are higher than the returns, then the organization should enter the product factor market to obtain these resources (Barney 1986). Another reason for an organization to formulate a strategy is based on obtaining resources or form strategic alliances. The organization will become less self-sufficient which increases the resource dependency of other companies (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978, Varadarajan and Cunningham 1995). The self-insufficiency creates uncertainties in the decisions of the organization. The strategic partnership, which is based on resource interdependences, is formed with the means of reducing uncertainty and enhancing the performance of the organization (Gulati and Sytch 2007).

(25)

Based on the strategic literature, a well formulated internal strategy to form strategic alliances reduces organizational uncertainties and has a positive influence on the company performance. When there is consensus at the upper echelon level about the formulated strategy, this will also increase organizational performance. The consensus at firm-level is important for the individual commitment to the strategic initiatives too. Individual commitment of the involved employees will increase strategic supportive behavior (Gagnon, Jansen and Michael 2008). Therefore, if there is commitment, amongst the employees, about the strategy to form strategic alliances, this will benefit the intention to cooperate within the partnership.

Internal strategy of the organization can be seen as a normative belief because, for the employee of the organization, it is an external factor that can influence the behavior of the employee to cooperate within the strategic alliance. Therefore, the following

proposition is presented.

P4: The internal strategy, formulated by the upper echelon, that the employee has to participate in a strategic alliance has a positive effect on the intentions of an employee to cooperate within the strategic alliances.

2.4. Factors related to control beliefs

2.4.1. Introduction of control beliefs

The final independent construct is the degree of perceived behavioral control which is the perceived ease or difficult to perform the behavior of the given context (Ajzen 1991). In his article Ajzen assumes that perceived behavioral control reflects to some extent to situational influences and past experiences as well as other anticipated obstacles. By using the construct of the theory of planned behavior, Cavozos (2013) also discovered a positive relationship between a managers perceived behavioral control over entering into strategic

(26)

alliances and the intention to entry in strategic alliances with the firm. Meaning that a high level of perceived behavioral control should strengthen the manager’s intention to enter a strategic alliance on behalf of the firm. Behavioral control is increased when individuals perceive that they have more resources and confidence than expected obstacles (Ajzen 1991). In the context of this study these resources and obstacles are related to the participation of the employee within the strategic alliance.

Based on the empirical findings in this prior research a proposition can be

formulated that perceived behavioral control of an employee to cooperate within a strategic alliance is related in a positive way to the intention of that employee to cooperate.

However, which factors influence this perceived behavioral control? Ajzen (1991) calls this factor control belief that provides the basis for perceptions of behavioral control. From an organizational perspective there are three factors, which are based on past experience, that influences the cooperation of the employee within the strategic partnership. These three factors are:

 trust in the strategic partner;

 opportunistic behavior of the strategic partner;  alliance-skills an employee possesses.

2.4.2. Trust in the strategic partner

Gulati (1995) stated that a positive previous experience in alliances motivates an organization to ally in more alliances. Due to the fact that more information is available that reduces risk factors and uncertainty. One factor that is discussed in the strategic literature, is the trust employees and the organization has in the strategic alliance. From an organizational perspective the inter-organizational trust refers to the extent of trust that is placed in the partner organization by the employees of the other organization (Zaheer,

(27)

McEvily and Perrone 1998). Trust in a strategic partner has a structural component and a behavioral component (Kale and Singh 2009). The structural component refers to the expectation that a partner will not engage opportunistic behavior within the contract of the strategic alliance. The behavioral component refers to the degree of confidence a firm has in the reliability and integrity of its partner (Kale and Singh 2009). Inter-firm trust is an important cause for firms to engage repeatedly in an alliance with the same partner (Gulati 1995). A positive outcome of inter-firm trust is that it can lower transaction costs because there is mutual trust between the firms and this will lower the costs of forming a contract. Trust will also lower monitoring costs because there is no reason to believe that a partner will engage in opportunistic behavior (Gulati 1995, Kale and Singh 2009). Based on this outcome firms are more willing to engage in a strategic alliance with a firm that is more trustworthy and therefore trust is beneficial and can be seen as a competitive advantage (Barney and Hansen 1994).

There is also an personal perspective in a strategic alliance besides the inter-firm perspective of trust in a strategic alliance. Inter-personal trust refers to the trust an employee has in his or her counterpart in the partner organization (Zaheer et.al. 1998). The quality of the relation between individuals, in strategic alliances, improves when there is inter-personal trust (Arino, Torre and Ring 2005). Therefore, when there is inter-personal trust between the employee and his or her counterpart, then there is more willingness to share or to provide information (Zaheer et.al. 1998).

Based on the strategic literature a perceived control belief that influence the

cooperation of the employee in a strategic alliance, is the inter-personal trust the employee has in the strategic partner. This trust factor can be seen as a control belief because trust is formed by past experiences within other alliances or with the same strategic partner and

(28)

this will therefore influence the employees’ perception of the partner and his intention to cooperate within the strategic alliance. Therefore, the following proposition is presented.

P5: The belief of the employee that he or she can trust the strategic partner has a positive effect on the intentions to cooperate within the strategic alliances.

2.4.3. Opportunistic behavior of the strategic partner

In the strategic literature has been written about a key problem with strategic alliances, namely opportunism. In this literature, opportunism can be a threat for alliance survival and success (Das and Rahman 2010). With this opportunistic behavior firms try to maximize their own particular interest by the expense of the partner (Das and Teng 2000). This opportunism involves motives that are intentional and not accidental (Das and

Rahman 2010). In their study, Das and Rahman 2001, p. 43 stated that in the context of strategic alliances opportunistic behavior includes “breaking promises, not sharing resources or facilities as in the agreement, bluffing, lying, misleading, etc.”. From a resource-based perspective opportunistic behavior can occur when there is unprotected tacit knowledge and skills (Das and Teng 2000). If the probability of opportunistic

behavior is high when a firm provides high valuable knowledge in a certain situation, then the firm should do the process itself and should not set up a contract with the market (Conner and Prahalad 1996). Another possibility is that the firm tends to be more

protective towards the knowledge when the firm provides high valuable knowledge within the strategic alliance (Norman 2002).

Based on the strategic literature, opportunism is a threat for the durability and success of a strategic alliance at firm level. Firms are more protective about their knowledge in a strategic alliance if there is a chance of opportunistic behavior (Norman 2002). This is also the case for employees who protect their knowledge within the strategic

(29)

alliance if they feel that the strategic partner shows opportunistic behavior. Employees who have experience with opportunistic behavior of the strategic partner in their own workplace or within the agreement of the strategic partnership, will see this behavior as an obstacle to participate again. Like the idea of Conner and Prahalad (1996), employees will try to find other possibilities to do the process itself instead of using the strategic alliance.

Opportunism can be seen as a control belief because if an employee is confronted with opportunistic behavior of the strategic partner. This opportunism will automatically influence the perception of the employee towards the behavior to cooperate in future strategic alliance. Therefore, the following proposition is presented.

P6: The belief of the employee that the strategic partner shows opportunistic behavior has a negative effect on the intentions of that employee to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

2.4.4. Alliance-skills an employee possesses

Perceived behavioral control is a function of the individual’s perception of how much the individual believe that they have the skills or attributes to perform the behavior. These skills or attributes can, in the context of this study at firm-level perspective, be translated in factors that influence the successfulness of the strategic alliance.

One success factor of a strategic alliance is the common vision that both partners have on the future (Spekman, Kamauff Jr. and Myhr 1998). The strategic partners should define clear goals. To achieve these goals, there should be clear procedures that are communicated through the organization (Whipple and Frankel 2000).

A second success factor for strategic alliances, that can be related to perceived behavioral control, is the investment in alliance structures to coordinate activities in the

(30)

strategic alliance (Kale, Dyer and Singh 2001). Kale et.al. (2001) also discovered that organizations should invest in systems to capture, codify, communicate, and coach alliance related know-how. This means that the company can build alliance-skills through prior experience.

Based on the strategic literature, the factors alliance-skills, clear defined goals and clear procedures have a positive effect on the alliance success. Organizations with these skills and vision are more confident to conduct in a strategic alliance. In line with the idea of Whipple and Frankel (2000), clear procedures that are communicated with the employee will help to achieve the goals of the strategic alliance. Like firms, an employee can also develop alliance-skills from prior experience. This can be his own experience, but also the experience of the organization that has been captured and codified by the organization and then communicated and coached to the employee. Alliance related skills at employee-level are competences that the employee has. These competences will benefit the individual’s belief that he or she can perform the cooperative behavior within a strategic alliance. Examples of competences are collaboration skill, communication skills, and service providing skills. Therefore, the following proposition is presented.

P7: The belief of the employee that he or she has alliance-skills has a positive effect on the intentions of that employee to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

2.5. Theoretical framework

Based on these propositions the following theoretical framework can be presented, see figure 3.

(31)

(32)

3. Methods

This chapter provides a description of the methods that are used in this thesis to answer the research question. In the research design section, the research approach will be explained and how data was collected to answer the research question. Then there is an explanation of the sample design and why this design is used. Finally, the methods of analyzing the collected data are explained.

3.1. Research design

To answer the research question - Which salient beliefs of employees towards strategic alliances influence the behavior to cooperate within these alliances? - a

qualitative approach was used in conducting a case study in which the Marine Maintenance Establishment (DMI) is examined. This approach was best suited because of two reasons. First, this approach helps me to develop a detailed understanding of the context of the research and the activity that is taking place at the DMI (Saunders and Lewis 2012). The second reason is that employees of the DMI are confronted with more and more strategic alliances. With this type of research detailed information can be gathered directly, from a small group of employees of the DMI, by conducting in-depth interviews. The information that was gathered from the interviews was used to test the propositions, and to find extra beliefs that are not discussed in the literature review.

This study was largely built on a deductive approach, meaning that the theoretical framework with the beliefs (figure 3) is formed by the literature review. This is stated by Saunders and Lewis (2012) too. They stated that research that started with a deductive approach will clarify existing theory, which will lead to the definition of the research question. Besides a deductive approach, this study also uses an inductive approach to find out if there are other salient beliefs besides the predetermined ones. The data that is

(33)

collected from the interviews was used to find new factors that were not discussed in the literature review.

The design of this thesis was based on the holistic single-case design that is shown in the framework (figure 4) of the basic design for case studies (Yin 2009). Saunders and Lewis (2012 p. 116) define a case study as a research strategy to explain a social

phenomenon in their context. Therefore, in this study it was a good strategy to find out which beliefs of employees influence cooperative behavior towards strategic alliances within their own working environment.

Figure 4: Basic types of design for case studies (Yin 2009)

3.2. Sampling

For this study purposive sampling was used to identify employees within the DMI. Saunders and Lewis (2012 p. 138) define purpose sampling as a type of non-probability sampling in which the researcher’s judgment is used to select the sample members based on a range of possible reasons and premises.

(34)

It is not well defined in the literature over what is the best sample size in qualitative research. It is often justified that researchers can stop with conducting interviews when ‘data saturation’ has been reached (Francis, Johnston, Robertson, Glidewell, Entwistle, Eccles, and Grimshaw 2010). Because there is no agreed method the proposed principles of Francis et.al. (2010) will be followed for the data collection in this paper. These

researchers proposed two principles when conducting a theory-based study, in this case this is the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985). The two principles are:

1: Initial sample analysis, this means that researchers should specify a priori what the initial sample size will be. For this study an initial sample of thirteen interviews will be used

2: Stopping criterion, meaning that the researcher should specify a priori a number of interviews that will be conducted that did not contribute any new ideas or themes. After this the researcher can conclude that data saturation has been achieved. For this study the stopping criterion will be set on two further interviews.

The last two interviews did not lead to additional findings. Therefore, the last interview was the fifteenth interview.

The DMI has more than 2,000 employees, but not all employees have experience with or knowledge about strategic alliances. For me, there were no barriers to come in contact with the employees who have experience and knowledge about strategic alliances because I am working at the DMI. First I contacted several heads of a particular division and asked if they knew employees who are or were participating in a strategic alliance. From the heads of the divisions I got a list of employees. This way I could select employees based on their experience with strategic alliances, or employees who are

(35)

participating within a strategic alliance. By selecting employees who have experience with strategic alliances, information was gathered from first-hand experience.

The DMI has a variety of working activities and therefore there are different types of strategic alliances within the organization. For example, the DMI has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Belgium Ministry of Defense. One part of this MoU

contains the maintenance of two Belgian Marine Vessels under control of the DMI. Some project members who are responsible for the execution of the maintenance project are involved in a partnership with military personnel of the Marine Vessel and the liaison officers.

Another example is the strategic alliance that the DMI recently formed with Thales Netherlands. This partnership is based on the goals and ambitions of the participants and that for the maintenance activities the sustainable strategic partnership creates more synergies, efficiency, and effectivity in the upkeep and maintenance of radar systems, sensors, and weapon systems delivered by Thales Netherlands. The employees of the DMI that are involved in this partnership are engineers and technicians.

In table 1 an overview is presented of the employees of the DMI that were interviewed. The table presents the experiences of the employee with strategic alliances. By selecting employees from different departments, and with different roles within a strategic alliance a heterogeneous group of respondents was selected. The number in the column number of interviews, does not correspondent with the respondentID’s that were used for quotes in the research findings section. Because of the privacy reasons this decision was made.

number of interviews

(36)

1 Former chairman technical workforce

Working as a SWS representative within several MoU’s

2 Account manager

DMI

Working as a DMI representative within several MoU’s

3 Ship manager

division Frigates

Working as a ship manager within the MoU BENESAM

4 Head of production of

the specific workshop

Working as a representative within several MoU’s that are related to guided missiles

5 Chairman technical

workforce

Working as a SWS representative within several MoU’s

6 Lead engineer guided

missiles

Working as a representative within several MoU’s that are related to guided missiles

7 Product expert C4i Working as a C4i representative within several MoU’s

8 Representative C4i in

technical workforce

Working as a C4i representative within several MoU’s

9 subject matter expert from optronics

Working as a optronics representative within several project with the industry as their partner

10 Project leader of the division optronics

Working as a project leader within several project with the industry as their partner

11 Head of engineering

division Specials

Working as a representative from the division Specials within several project with the industry as their partner

12 Account manager

division Specials

Working as a representative from the division Specials within several project with the industry as their partner

13 Head logistics

international

Working as a logistic representative within several MoU’s

14 Project manager

division Frigates

Working as a project manager within the MoU BENESAM

15 Subject matter expert ballistic missile

Working as a representative within several MoU’s related to ballistic missile defense

(37)

defense

Table 1: overview of employees that participated in the interview and their experience with strategic alliances

3.3. Data collection

In order to find salient beliefs of employees that influences their cooperative behavior in a strategic alliance, semi-structured interviews were used for collecting data. With this method of data collection, the interviewer can ask predetermined question but has the freedom to vary in the themes and can leave out or add additional question during the interview (Saunders and Lewis 2012 p. 151). Therefore, this type of data collection was chosen because there were several topics that needed to be covered in the interview. The collected data was used for answering the research question and defending the

propositions. For example, when the participant was being vague or short in his answers, the interviewer could ask additional question to make the answer more understandable and supportive in relation to the question and the propositions. By asking additional question it was also possible that new contributing information to the research question was stated by the participant.

The first question in the interview protocol was an open question that was not related to one of the propositions. In this question the participant was asked which factors he or she thinks are important to make the strategic alliance successful. The goal of this first question was that the participant of the interview could speak freely about factors in a relationship that they think are important and how this affect their cooperative behavior within the strategic alliance. There were no boundaries in answering this question because in the question itself there was no relation to one of the categories of the propositions. When the participant of the interview was finished with his or her answer of the first question, the interview protocol continued with seven questions that were related to the

(38)

seven propositions. The order of the questions is not fixed because this was determined by the answer that was given in the first question. It was possible that one or more of the questions were left out because this topic was already addressed in the first question. After the questions that were related to the seven proposition, one final open question was asked. In this question the participant was asked if there were other factors that were important, for him or his colleagues, in the working relationship with the strategic partner that were not previously discussed. The interview protocol that was used for the interviews can be found in appendix A.

3.4. Data analysis

After conducting the interviews, the recorded interviews were transcribed by the author. The transcripts were imported in a qualitative data-analysis software program NVIVO v.11. This program helped to analyze unstructured data that was in the transcript of the interviews. The software helped to classify, sort and arrange information, examine relationships in the data, and combine analysis with linking, shaping, searching and modeling. This program clearly helped to make sense of the data and saves time in the process but it cannot do thinking for you and it cannot formulate conclusions. (O’Dwyer, 2004, p. 395).

Before analyzing the interviews in NVIVO, codes were identified that were based on the propositions and describes the data from the interviews. This was also advised by Saunders and Lewis (2012). This has the purpose that the researcher can attach units of data to the relevant code. Coding was used to find the meaning and explanation of the collected data. Soldaña (2015 p.4) refers to a code in qualitative research as a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative

(39)

attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data. For defending the proposition, predetermined codes were used for coding. These codes are summarized in table 2.

Proposition 1 Learning

Proposition 2 Resources

Proposition 3 Power

Proposition 4 Internal strategy

Proposition 5 Trust

Proposition 6 Opportunism

Proposition 7 Skills

Table 2: Predetermined codes based on the seven propositions

This study also uses an inductive approach to find out if there were other salient beliefs besides the predetermined ones. It was possible that parts of the collected data were not related to one of the predetermined codes because open ended questions were asked in the interviews. If this data could be related to a belief that is in line with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), then a new code that was symbolic to that data was used. For example, one employee stated the following phrase that was coded as job-satisfaction:

“It is not about the reward, but it is more about the success. That is what you see,

and that is what you celebrate. That was something you have been working on. It is

a piece of work experience and enthusiasm. That helps to pick up future projects.”

The coded data per code was printed out. By doing this, there was data reduction because now only the relevant data per code was organized. In this next step the printed papers were analyzed. At first, the data from the predetermined codes were analyzed with the purpose to discover a unified story for defending the propositions. Second, the data

(40)

from the new codes were analyzed with the purpose to discover new beliefs that can be related to one of the beliefs that are in line with the theory of planned behavior. The findings of the data analysis are presented in the chapter “research findings”.

(41)

4. Research findings

The research findings from the interviews will be discussed in this chapter. It is divided in three sections. First, based on the findings in the interviews, the result per proposition will be presented. Second, in the research findings from the interviews two new factors were identified, and will be discussed. Finally, the adjusted theoretical framework will be presented in figure 5.

4.1. Findings that are related to the propositions

4.1.1. Behavioral beliefs

The first two propositions can be seen as behavioral beliefs because the learning opportunity and the use of the resources of the strategic partner can be valued by the employee as a perceived benefit. These benefits influence the attitude towards the behavior to cooperate within the strategic alliance. The first proposition that was presented is:

P1: The belief of the employee that he or she can learn from the strategic partner has a positive effect on the intentions of an employee to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

From the fifteen employees of the DMI that have been interviewed, thirteen pointed out that the opportunity to learn from the strategic partner has a positive effect on the intentions to cooperate in the strategic alliance. A number of employees is working in one or more international alliances. These employees learn from the cultural differences between the nations. They learn from the views and ideas these countries have in the projects, but from the behavior, expressions and attitude the international partner has within meetings. This is experienced by an employee of the DMI too:

“I have learned that you must have patience. It is a different culture and I think it is

(42)

keep their respect. […] That is a leaning moment. Then they hold a mirror in front

of you, and then you see that they achieve success because of their attitude.” (Respondent 1)

The most employees stated that they learn from the strategic partner by increasing their skills and expertise. These skills and expertise can be used in strategic alliance or in other job activities. One employee stated about this subject:

“With this collaboration we learned all the ins and outs of the camera. Now we can

do our own maintenance. […] That is very positive, because you can use this knowledge also in other projects. […] It is always nice to keep up with the new techniques. […] That is a real motivator, to keep up with the techniques.” (Respondent 2)

This quote is consistent with the firm-level ideas of Hamel (1991) and Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004). It is consistent with the idea that the employee can increase his competencies by acquiring new knowledge skills and expertise. The strategic partner can contribute by assisting the employee to apply this new knowledge. Another quote that is consistent with this idea, is the quote:

“You can learn from the manufacturer because you can go to technical sessions

where curtain matters are explained. This knowledge comes in handy because with this knowledge it communicates a lot easier. […] Often you speak with a specialist from a department and then it is easy to get some answers. So the more knowledge you gain, the easier it goes.” (Respondent 3)

(43)

Based on the research findings from the interviews it can be concluded that the opportunity to learn from the strategic partner has a positive effect on the intentions of the employee to participate within the strategic alliance.

The second proposition that is related to the behavioral beliefs, concerns the resources the employee can use:

P2: The belief of the employee that the use of resources from the strategic partner adds value to the job activities has a positive effect on the intentions of an employee to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

In the research findings from the interviews there is a split in the responds. In seven interviews the employees pointed out that the use of resources from the strategic partner has a positive effect on the intentions to cooperate within the strategic alliance. The other employees stated that the use of resources does not influence their intention to cooperate, because this does not influence their own job activities. For example, an employee of the DMI stated:

“What we did at the specific workshop was missile certification for other countries.

[…] Large investments for test equipment, which are millions, are jointly bought.

[…] This way you can equally share the costs for the expensive means for

production. […] No, it does not influence my own intentions. I saw it more as a given fact.” (Respondent 4)

Another quote related to this subject:

“We maintain a part for partner X and partner X maintains a part for us. That is

how we exchange this. […] You know that it is like this. I do not think that this personally influences me.” (Respondent 1)

(44)

The employees that pointed out that the use of resources has a positive effect on their intentions to cooperate within the strategic alliance, are employees on which this use has direct effect on their job activities. The employee sees the use of resources as a

perceived benefit in their own workplace and within the agreement of the strategic alliance. This perceived benefit is based on the firm level-ideas of Das and Teng (2000) and Gulati and Sytch (2007), were the employee adds value to his or her job activities by pooling and utilizing of resources with the strategic partner. The use of resources within the strategic alliance has the purpose that it reduces uncertainties and enhances the job performance of the employee, like an employee of the DMI stated:

“It helps to share knowledge with the partners. We could also share other

resources if that is necessary. In that we can achieve a lot of profit. […] We also help other partners with the storing of weapons or delivering assistance at the scene or by phone. It is a reciprocity. […] It has a positive effect. Because if we can help a partner than it is also good for us.” (Respondent 5)

Another quote related to this subject is:

“For this project, the sharing of resources was the foundation. […] It was crucial

to make some progress. For example, we used a special microscope from partner X. We needed this microscope to make sure that our techniques were working. […] Without this exchange, it was very difficult for this alliance to succeed.”

(Respondent 6)

Based on the research findings from the interviews it can be concluded that the use of resources from the strategic partner only has a positive effect on the intentions of the employee to participate within a strategic alliance, when this use directly influences their

(45)

job activities. The employee has to see or feel that the use of resources has a perceived benefit in their own workplace, or it helps the strategic alliance to succeed. When the use of resources does not directly influences the job activities of the employee, it will not affect their intentions to cooperate.

4.1.2. Normative beliefs

The third and the fourth propositions are related to the normative beliefs of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991). Organizational power, and internal policies are two factors that can be related to a social pressure that influences the cooperation of the employee within the strategic partnership. The third proposition that was formulated is:

P3: The belief of the employee that the strategic partner has power over him or her has a negative effect on the intentions to cooperate within the strategic alliance.

For the organizational power, the research findings from the interviews show that there is a split in the responds. In four interviews the employees pointed out that the pressure or power from the strategic partner has a negative effect on the intentions to cooperate within the strategic alliance. For the other employees the pressure or control the partner exposed, was not of any influence on the intentions to cooperate. For them the pressure consists mostly in deadlines. Deadlines that they had to come with a solution for a problem or a deadline to deliver a product. An example about the deadline was stated by an employee the interview:

“The pressure rises when we cannot deliver the Albatroscamera on time. […] They

let us know that they are not happy about it and that is has financial consequences for them. […] I do not get warm or cold of it. […] Personally, I do not feel the

The identification of salient beliefs which influences the behavior of an employee to cooperate within a strategic alliance : a case study at the Marine Maintenance Establishment