Determinants of influence strategies in international strategic alliances
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".