Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 365–392 | Cite as

Understanding the structural characteristics of a firm’s whole buyer–supplier network and its impact on international business performance

  • Amalesh Sharma
  • V. Kumar
  • Jun YanEmail author
  • Sourav Bikash Borah
  • Anirban Adhikary
Article

Abstract

Building on the network theory and the concept of organizational ambidexterity, we investigate the impact of structural characteristics of a firm’s whole buyer–supplier network: network density, betweenness centralization, and average clustering coefficient on its international business (IB) performance. We also explore the moderating roles of average path length and PageRank centrality. Using a manually-collected dataset and a robust empirical methodology, we find that, while network density is negatively related, betweenness centralization and average clustering coefficient have an inverted U-shape and a U-shaped relationship with IB performance, respectively. We also find significant moderation effects, and, in the process, we show the economic importance of firms’ whole buyer–supplier network to their IB performance. We contribute to the international business and whole buyer–supplier network literature.

Keywords

whole buyer–supplier network international business performance ambidexterity network structure curvilinear relationship 

Résumé

En nous appuyant sur la théorie des réseaux et le concept d’ambidextrie organisationnelle, nous étudions l’incidence des caractéristiques structurelles de l’ensemble du réseau acheteur-fournisseur d’une firme : densité du réseau, centralisation des entremêlements et coefficient de regroupement moyen sur la performance de son international business (IB). Nous explorons également les rôles modérateurs de la longueur moyenne du sentier et de la centralité PageRank. En utilisant un ensemble de données collectées manuellement et une méthodologie empirique robuste, nous trouvons que si la densité de réseau est négativement corrélée, la centralisation des entremêlements et le coefficient de regroupement moyen ont respectivement une forme de U inversé et une relation en forme de U avec les performances de l’IB. Nous constatons également des effets de modération significatifs et, ce faisant, nous montrons l’importance économique de l’ensemble du réseau acheteur-fournisseur des firmes pour leurs performances en matière d’IB. Nous contribuons à la littérature de l’international business et de l’ensemble du réseau acheteur-fournisseur.

Resumen

Con base en la teoría de redes y el concepto de organizaciones ambidiestras, investigamos el impacto de las características estructurales de la red de compradores y proveedores de una empresa: densidad de la red, centralización de la intermediación, y el coeficiente de agrupación promedio en el desempeño de los negocios internacionales. También exploramos los roles moderadores la longitud de ruta promedio y la centralidad de PageRank. Usando un conjunto de datos recolectados manualmente y una metodología empírica robusta, encontramos que mientras que la densidad de la red se relaciona negativamente, la centralización de la intermediación y el coeficiente de agrupación promedio tienen una forma de U invertida y una relación en forma de U con el desempeño de los negocios internacionales, respectivamente. También encontramos efectos moderadores significativos, y en el proceso, mostramos la importancia económica de toda la red de compradores y proveedores en su desempeño negocios internacionales. Contribuimos a la literatura de negocios internacionales y de toda la red de compradores y proveedores.

Resumo

Com base na teoria de redes e no conceito de ambidestria organizacional, investigamos o impacto de características estruturais de toda a rede de compradores-fornecedores de uma empresa: densidade de rede, centralização de interdependência e coeficiente médio de agrupamento no desempenho de seus negócios internacionais (IB). Também exploramos os papeis moderadores do comprimento médio do caminho e da centralidade PageRank. Usando um conjunto de dados coletados manualmente e uma metodologia empírica robusta, descobrimos que, embora a densidade da rede esteja negativamente relacionada, a centralização de interdependência e o coeficiente médio de agrupamento têm uma relação com o desempenho de IB, respectivamente, em forma de U invertido e em forma de U. Também encontramos efeitos moderadores significativos e, no processo, mostramos a importância econômica da rede de todos os compradores-fornecedores da empresa para o desempenho em IB. Contribuímos para a literatura sobre negócios internacionais e rede de todos os compradores-fornecedores.

摘要

基于网络理论和组织双元性的概念, 我们研究了公司整个买方-供应商网络的结构特征的影响: 网络密度、介数集中化和平均集群系数对其国际商务(IB)绩效的影响。我们还探讨了平均路径长度和网页排名中心性的调节作用。 使用人工收集的数据集和稳妥的实证方法, 我们发现当网络密度是负相关时, 介数集中化和平均集群系数与IB绩效分别具有倒U形和U形的关系。我们还发现了显著的缓和效应,同时在此过程中, 我们展示了公司的整个买方-供应商网络对其IB绩效的经济重要性。我们为国际商务以及整个买方-供应商网络文献做出了贡献。

Notes

Supplementary material

41267_2019_215_MOESM1_ESM.docx (585 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 389 kb)

References

  1. Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425–455.Google Scholar
  2. Angrist, J. & Pischke, J. 2008. Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  3. Aoki, K. & Wilhelm, M. 2017. The role of ambidexterity in managing buyer–supplier relationships: The toyota case. Organization Science, 28(6): 1080–1097.Google Scholar
  4. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. 2000. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 909–924.Google Scholar
  5. Banalieva, E. R. & Dhanaraj, C. 2013. Home-region orientation in international expansion strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(2): 89–116.Google Scholar
  6. Basole, R. C. 2016. Topological analysis and visualization of interfirm collaboration networks in the electronics industry. Decision Support Systems, 83: 22–31.Google Scholar
  7. Bellamy, M. A. & Basole, R. C. 2013. Network analysis of supply chain systems: A systematic review and future research. Systems Engineering, 16(2): 235–249.Google Scholar
  8. Bellamy, M. A., Ghosh, S., & Hora, M. 2014. The influence of supply network structure on firm innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 32(6): 357–373.Google Scholar
  9. Bello, D. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Robson, M. J. 2010. Does accommodating a self-serving partner in an international marketing alliance pay off? Journal of Marketing, 74(6): 77–93.Google Scholar
  10. Borgatti, S. P. & Halgin, D. S. 2011. On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1168–1181.Google Scholar
  11. Borgatti, S. P. & Li, X. 2009. On social network analysis in a supply chain context. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2): 5–22.Google Scholar
  12. Bos, B., Faems, D., & Noseleit, F. 2017. Alliance Concentration in Multinational Companies: Examining Alliance Portfolios, Firm Structure, and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11): 2298–2309Google Scholar
  13. Brown, J. R., & Dant, R. P. 2008. On what makes a significant contribution to the retailing literature. Journal of Retailing, 84(2): 131–135.Google Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. 2009. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Capar, N. & Kotabe, M. 2003. The relationship between international diversification and performance in service firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4): 345–355.Google Scholar
  16. Carpenter, M. A., Li, M., & Jiang, H. 2012. Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1328–1361.Google Scholar
  17. Chakravarty, A., Kumar, A., & Grewal, R. 2014. Customer orientation structure for internet-based business-to-business platform firms. Journal of Marketing, 78(5): 1–23.Google Scholar
  18. Chandra, Y. & Wilkinson, I. F. 2017. Firm internationalization from a network-centric complex-systems perspective. Journal of World Business, 52(5): 691–701.Google Scholar
  19. Choi, T.Y., Dooley, K.J., & Rungtusanatham, M. 2001. Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3): 351–366.Google Scholar
  20. Choi, T. Y., & Krause D. R. 2006. The supply base and its complexity: Implications for transaction costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5): 637–652.Google Scholar
  21. Coleman, J. S. 2000. Social capital in the creation of human capital, Knowledge and Social Capital. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Collinson, S. & Rugman, A. M. 2008. The regional nature of Japanese multinational business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): 215–230Google Scholar
  23. Coviello, N. E. 2006. The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 713–731.Google Scholar
  24. Cowen, A.P. 2012. An expanded model of status dynamics: The effects of status transfer and interfirm coordination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1169–1186Google Scholar
  25. DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
  26. Dimov, D. & Milanov, H. 2010. The interplay of need and opportunity in venture capital investment syndication. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4): 331–348.Google Scholar
  27. Dong, J. & Horvath, S. 2007. Understanding network concepts in modules. BMC Systems Biology, 1(1): 24.Google Scholar
  28. Ellis, P.D. 2011. Social ties and international entrepreneurship: Opportunities and constraints affecting firm internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1): 99–127.Google Scholar
  29. Ernst, D. & Kim, L. 2002. Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Research Policy, 31(8–9): 1417–1429.Google Scholar
  30. Fang, E., Lee, J., Palmatier, R., & Han, S. 2016. If it takes a village to foster innovation, success depends on the neighbors: The effects of global and ego networks on new product launches. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3): 319–337.Google Scholar
  31. Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 202–225.Google Scholar
  32. Forsgren, M. 2016. A note on the revisited Uppsala internationalization process model–the implications of business networks and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(9): 1135–1144.Google Scholar
  33. Gargiulo, M., Ertug, G., & Galunic, C. 2009. The two faces of control: Network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2): 299–333.Google Scholar
  34. Gibson, C.B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47.2: 209–226.Google Scholar
  35. Gnyawali, D.R., & Madhavan, R. 2001. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 431–445.Google Scholar
  36. Granovetter, M. 2005. The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1): 33–50.Google Scholar
  37. Grewal, R., Lilien, G. L., & Mallapragada, G. 2006. Location, location, location: How network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Management Science, 52(7): 1043–1056.Google Scholar
  38. Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4): 293–317.Google Scholar
  39. Guler, I. & Guillen, M. F. 2010. Home country networks and foreign expansion: Evidence from the venture capital industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2): 390–410.Google Scholar
  40. Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. 2016. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U‐and inverted U‐shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1177–1195.Google Scholar
  41. Hartmann, J., and Moeller, S. 2014. Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5): 281–294.Google Scholar
  42. Hausman, J. A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6): 1251–1271.Google Scholar
  43. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(4), 627–660.Google Scholar
  44. He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4): 481–494.Google Scholar
  45. Heckmann, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47 (1): 153–161.Google Scholar
  46. Hsu, C.W., Lien, Y.C., & Chen, H. 2013. International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48(1): 58–67.Google Scholar
  47. Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Griffith, D. A., Chabowski, B. R., Hamman, M. K., Dykes, B. J., Pollitte, W. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2008. An assessment of the measurement of performance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6): 1064–1080.Google Scholar
  48. Im, G. & Rai, A. 2008. Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7): 1281–1296.Google Scholar
  49. Ireland, R. D. & Webb, J. W. 2007. A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2): 482–497.Google Scholar
  50. Iurkov, V. & Benito, G. R. 2017. Domestic alliance networks and regional strategies of MNEs: A structural embeddedness perspective. Journal of International Business Studies: 1–27.Google Scholar
  51. Jean, R. J., Kim, D., & Sinkovics, R. R. 2012. Drivers and performance outcomes of supplier innovation generation in customer–supplier relationships: The role of power‐dependence. Decision Sciences, 43(6): 1003–1038.Google Scholar
  52. Jensen, M. & Roy, A. 2008. Staging exchange partner choices: When do status and reputation matter? Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 495–516.Google Scholar
  53. Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J.-E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.Google Scholar
  54. Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J.-E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411–1431.Google Scholar
  55. Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 299–312.Google Scholar
  56. Kaiser, M. & Hilgetag, C. C. 2004. Edge vulnerability in neural and metabolic networks. Biological Cybernetics, 90(5): 311–317.Google Scholar
  57. Kano, L. 2017. Global value chain governance: A relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies (2017) 1–22.Google Scholar
  58. Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., & Hult, G. T. M. 2016. Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80(2): 1–20.Google Scholar
  59. Kenis, P. & Knoke, D. 2002. How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 275–293.Google Scholar
  60. Khoja, F., Adams, J., & Kauffman, R. 2011. The inside story of relationship development: power asymmetry in a buyer? supplier relationship. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 6(1): 73–91.Google Scholar
  61. Kim, C. & Park, J.-H. 2010. The global research-and-development network and its effect on innovation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(4): 43–57.Google Scholar
  62. Kim, D.-Y. 2014. Understanding supplier structural embeddedness: A social network perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5): 219–231.Google Scholar
  63. Kim, M. 2016. Geographic scope, isolating mechanisms, and value appropriation. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4): 695–713.Google Scholar
  64. Kim, Y., Choi, T. Y., Yan, T., & Dooley, K. 2011. Structural investigation of supply networks: A social network analysis approach. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3): 194–211.Google Scholar
  65. Kirca, A. H., Hult, G. T. M., Deligonul, S., Perryy, M. Z., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2012. A multilevel examination of the drivers of firm multinationality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 38(2): 502–530.Google Scholar
  66. Kleinbaum, A. M., & Stuart, T. E. (2014). Network responsiveness: The social structural microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 353–367.Google Scholar
  67. Kortmann, S., Gelhard, C., Zimmermann, C., & Piller, F. T. 2014. Linking strategic flexibility and operational efficiency: The mediating role of ambidextrous operational capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7–-8): 475–490.Google Scholar
  68. Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. 2003. Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4): 293–316.Google Scholar
  69. Kristal, M. M., Huang, X., & Roth, A. V. 2010. The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28(5): 415–429.Google Scholar
  70. Kukkala, V. B., Saini, J. S., & Iyengar, S. 2016. Privacy preserving network analysis of distributed social networks. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  71. Kumar, S. & Jan, J. M. 2014. Research collaboration networks of two OIC nations: Comparative study between Turkey and Malaysia in the field of ‘Energy Fuels’, 2009–2011. Scientometrics, 98(1): 387–414.Google Scholar
  72. Lazer, D. & Friedman, A. 2007. The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4): 667–694.Google Scholar
  73. Lazzarini, S. G., Claro, D. P., & Mesquita, L. F. 2008. Buyer–supplier and supplier–supplier alliances: do they reinforce or undermine one another? Journal of Management Studies, 45(3): 561–584.Google Scholar
  74. Lee, S.-Y., Klassen, R. D., Furlan, A., & Vinelli, A. 2014. The green bullwhip effect: Transferring environmental requirements along a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 156: 39–51.Google Scholar
  75. Li, X. 2014. Can Yin-Yang guide Chinese indigenous management research? Management and Organization Review, 10(1): 7–28.Google Scholar
  76. Lorenzen, M. & Mudambi, R. 2012. Clusters, connectivity and catch-up: Bollywood and Bangalore in the global economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(3): 501–534.Google Scholar
  77. Lu, G. & Shang, G. 2017. Impact of supply base structural complexity on financial performance: Roles of visible and not-so-visible characteristics. Journal of Operations Management, 53: 23–44.Google Scholar
  78. Luo, Y. & Rui, H. 2009. An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4): 49–70.Google Scholar
  79. Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.Google Scholar
  81. Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., & Mitchell, W. 1998. Organizational evolution in the interorganizational environment: Incentives and constraints on international expansion strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly: 566–601.Google Scholar
  82. McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1), 91–103.Google Scholar
  83. Mizik, N. & Jacobson, R. 2003. Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1): 63–76.Google Scholar
  84. Nobeoka, K., Dyer, J. H., & Madhok, A. 2002. The influence of customer scope on supplier learning and performance in the Japanese automobile industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4): 717–736.Google Scholar
  85. Obloj, T. & Zemsky, P. 2015. Value creation and value capture under moral hazard: Exploring the micro‐foundations of buyer–supplier relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 36(8): 1146–1163.Google Scholar
  86. Oehme, M. & Bort, S. 2015. SME internationalization modes in the German biotechnology industry: The influence of imitation, network position, and international experience. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(6): 629–655.Google Scholar
  87. Patel, P. C., Fernhaber, S. A., McDougall‐Covin, P. P., & van der Have, R. P. 2014. Beating competitors to international markets: The value of geographically balanced networks for innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5): 691–711.Google Scholar
  88. Patel, P. C., Terjesen, S., & Li, D. 2012. Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. Journal of Operations Management, 30(3): 201–220.Google Scholar
  89. Petrin, A. & Train, K. 2010. A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1): 3–13.Google Scholar
  90. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2000. Inter‐organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1).Google Scholar
  91. Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. 2007. Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3): 479–516.Google Scholar
  92. Provan, K. G. & Milward, H. B. 1995. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly: 1–33.Google Scholar
  93. Provan, K. G. & Skinner, S. J. 1989. Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of opportunism in dealer-supplier relations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1): 202–212.Google Scholar
  94. Regner, P., & Zander, U. 2011. Knowledge and strategy creation in multinational companies. Management International Review, 51(6):821–850.Google Scholar
  95. Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 369–386.Google Scholar
  96. Rugman, A. M. & Verbeke, A. 2003. Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 125–137.Google Scholar
  97. Rugman, A. M. & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary‐specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.Google Scholar
  98. Schilling, M. A. & Phelps, C. C. 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7): 1113–1126.Google Scholar
  99. Shrader, R. C. 2001. Collaboration and performance in foreign markets: The case of young high-technology manufacturing firms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 45–60.Google Scholar
  100. Shao, B. B., Shi, Z. M., Choi, T. Y., & Chae, S. 2018. A data-analytics approach to identifying hidden critical suppliers in supply networks: Development of nexus supplier index. Decision Support Systems, 114, 37–48.Google Scholar
  101. Saboo, A. R., Kumar, V., & Anand, A. 2017. Assessing the Impact of Customer Concentration on Initial Public Offering and Balance Sheet–Based Outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 81(6): 42–61.Google Scholar
  102. Simsek, Z. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4): 597–624.Google Scholar
  103. Spencer, J. W. 2003. Global gatekeeping, representation, and network structure: a longitudinal analysis of regional and global knowledge-diffusion networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(5): 428–442.Google Scholar
  104. Spender, J. C. 1989. Industry recipes: An enquiry into the nature and sources of managerial judgement. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  105. Stadtfeld, C. 2012. Events in social networks: A stochastic actor-oriented framework for dynamic event processes in social networks. Karlsruhe: KITg.Google Scholar
  106. Swaminathan, V., & Moorman, C. 2009. Marketing alliances, firm networks, and firm value creation. Journal of Marketing, 73(5) 52–69.Google Scholar
  107. Thomaz, F. & Swaminathan, V. 2015. What goes around comes around: The impact of marketing alliances on firm risk and the moderating role of network density. Journal of Marketing, 79(5): 63–79.Google Scholar
  108. Thye, S. R. 2000. A status value theory of power in exchange relations. American Sociological Review: 407–432.Google Scholar
  109. Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2): 179–190.Google Scholar
  110. Turkina, E. & Van Assche, A. 2018. Global connectedness and local innovation in industrial clusters. Journal of International Business Studies,49(6): 1–23.Google Scholar
  111. Uotila, J.,Maula, M., Keil,T., & Zahra, S.A. 2009. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2): 221–231.Google Scholar
  112. Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35–67.Google Scholar
  113. Uzzi, B. & Spiro, J. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem 1. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2): 447–504.Google Scholar
  114. Vahlne, J.-E. & Johanson, J. 2017a. From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1087–1102.Google Scholar
  115. Vahlne, J.-E. & Jonsson, A. 2017b. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26(1): 57–70.Google Scholar
  116. Verbeke, A. 2003. The evolutionary view of the MNE and the future of internalization theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 498–504.Google Scholar
  117. Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. 2011. The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6): 561–576.Google Scholar
  118. Wellman, B. (1997). Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. Contemporary Studies in Sociology, 15, 19–61.Google Scholar
  119. Werner, S., Brouthers, L. E., & Brouthers, K. D. 1996. International risk and perceived environmental uncertainty: the dimensionality and internal consistency of Miller’s measure. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3): 571–587.Google Scholar
  120. Wuyts, S. & Geyskens, I. 2005. The formation of buyer—supplier relationships: detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. Journal of Marketing, 69(4): 103–117.Google Scholar
  121. Yan, T., Choi, T. Y., Kim, Y., & Yang, Y. 2015. A theory of the nexus supplier: A critical supplier from a network perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(1): 52–66.Google Scholar
  122. Yang, H., Lin, Z. J., & Lin, Y. L. 2010. A multilevel framework of firm boundaries: firm characteristics, dyadic differences, and network attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 237–261.Google Scholar
  123. Yamane, Taro. 1967. Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  124. Yli-Renko, H. & Janakiraman, R. 2008. How customer portfolio affects new product development in technology-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Marketing, 72(5): 131–148.Google Scholar
  125. Yu, J., Gilbert, B. A., & Oviatt, B. M. 2011. Effects of alliances, time, and network cohesion on the initiation of foreign sales by new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 32(4): 424–446.Google Scholar
  126. Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. 2010. It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1): 62–77.Google Scholar
  127. Zaheer, A. & Kamal, D. F. 2011. Creating trust in piranha-infested waters: The confluence of buyer, supplier and host country contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1): 48–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amalesh Sharma
    • 1
  • V. Kumar
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jun Yan
    • 6
    Email author
  • Sourav Bikash Borah
    • 7
  • Anirban Adhikary
    • 8
  1. 1.Mays Business SchoolTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Center for Excellence in Brand and Customer Management, J. Mack Robinson College of BusinessGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.HUSTWuhanChina
  4. 4.Hagler Institute for Advanced StudyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  5. 5.Indian School of BusinessHyderabadIndia
  6. 6.Management SchoolHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  7. 7.Indian Institute of Management AhmedabadAhmedabadIndia
  8. 8.Indian Institute of Management UdaipurUdaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations