Determinants of influence strategies in international strategic alliances

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate how relative power and mutual commitment affect partners’ choice of influence strategies and how national culture may moderate these effects in the context of international strategic alliances. Design/methodology/approach – In two experiments involving US and Chinese managers, respectively, the study looks into situations wherein a party’s power is lower, equal or higher, all relative to the other party, and there is high versus low mutual commitment between the two parties. The effects of relative power and mutual commitment on influence strategies are also compared between US and Chinese managers. Findings – There is no significant difference between low and equal power with regard to choice of influence strategies. However, moving from a low/equal power to a high-power position, a party’s use of integrative (non-mediated) communications decreased significantly, whereas the use of coercive (mediated) communications increased significantly. The results also show that the effect of relative power is greater when mutual commitment is low than when mutual commitment is high. Finally, there is evidence that the effect of power is stronger for the Americans, whereas the effect of commitment is stronger for the Chinese. Originality/value – The paper offers a finer account of power relations wherein a party’s power is lower than, equal to or higher than that of the other party and explores the moderating effect role of national culture on the linkages from relative power and relationship commitment to influence strategy use.