Measuring Alliance Success: The Role of Strategic Fit

Manir Zaman, Felix Mavondo, Monash University

Abstract
Strategic fit or coalignment is a notion that asserts that the environment and organisational
strategy interact in a dynamic coalignment process and a match between them has significant
and positive implications on performance. With respect to alliances, the concept of strategic fit
or coalignment has not previously been empirically examined. It is a major and continuing
challenge for alliance managers and firms to align alliance attributes with organisational
capabilities. Based on a sample of alliances drawn from the Australian manufacturing and
Service sectors, this study empirically tests strategic fit as coalignment or covariation and its
implications on alliance performance. The results suggest that coaligning or reconciling the
alliance attributes such as partner characteristics, relationship management and organisational
capabilities have considerable influence on alliance success and that the coalignment model is
significantly superior to a direct effect model.
Introduction
Alliances are cooperative agreements between firms in which partners may contribute capital,
technology or other firm specific resources and capabilities (Harrigan, 1988b). Due to
heightened competitive and uncertain business environment, many firms have formed alliances
to survive. An extensive review of the alliance literature reveals that although alliances are
growing at 25% p.a. globally, yet alliances have failure rates as high as 70% (Cravens &
Cravens, 2000; Das & Teng., 1997; Hughes & Weiss 2007; Parkhe, 1998). Despite somewhat
paradoxical nature of the popularity of alliances versus their failure rate, their growth is
expected to continue (Harbison & Pekar, 1998). Literature is inconclusive and fragmented on
identifying the underlying reasons of high failure rate of alliances and suggesting what firms
can do to enhance the probability of success. Thus, it is an intriguing and important question
for researchers to further examine the reasons for performance differences.
Key success factors identified in previous studies for both domestic and international alliances
are partnership characteristics (Hitt et.al. 2000, Madhok, 1995, Saxton, 1997) relationship
management (e.g., Cullen, 2000; Hitt et al., 2000; Lorange & Roos, 1993; Saxton, 1997 and the
development of good relational capital between partners (Koza & Lewin, 2000; Madhok &
Tallman, 1998; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). These studies provide only partial information on
success factors because alliance outcome cannot be measured based on ex-ante (formation) and
ex-post (management of relationship) factors alone. Relatively, little attention has been given
on understanding how organisational capabilities of the partners influence implementation of
alliance strategy, and, in turn, affects alliance performance. We argue that the success of
alliances stems from each partners ability to match or align its organisational capabilities with
alliance attributes such as partnership characteristics, and the management of the relationship.
Therefore, drawing on the notion of strategic fit, this study seeks to examine the coalignment
of (a) partner characteristics, (b) alliance relationship management, (c) organisational
capabilities and their relationship to (d) alliance success. Our unique contribution is that we
provide empirical tests of the coalignment effect of these factors on alliance performance.

Literature Review
Strategic Fit
Strategic fit, which is also referred to as congruency, contingency, matching or coalignment, is
an important emerging concept both in strategic management and strategic marketing research
(e.g. Venkatraman, 1990b; Vohries & Morgan, 2003; Xu, Cavusgil, & White, 2006). In simple
terms, strategic fit refers to the match between strategy and its content. The basic proposition
of the strategic fit literature is that the degree of congruence or coalignment between strategy
and its context has significant performance implications. In the context of alliances, strategic fit
implies the efficiency with which organisational resources and capabilities are aligned with the
complementary resources and capabilities that that an alliance brings. Specifically, in alliances,
coalignment posits higher effectiveness (performance) for organisations that have reconciled
the competing needs of the partnering firms. The increased effectiveness is attributed to
internal consistency or proper matching with relevant internal and external factors (Doty,
Glick, & Huber, 1993). Thus, the conceptualisation of coalignment is that a set of important
decisions on alliance attributes should be consistent with the organisational capabilities of the
partnering firms. Our conceptualisation is similar to a systems approach as noted by
Venkatraman (1990a), Drazin and van de Ven (1985), and Gressov and Drazin (1997).
The conceptualisation of strategic fit can be characterised by two major orientations:
descriptive and normative (e.g. Venkatraman, 1990b). We follow a normative perspective in
developing explicit linkages between coalignment and alliance performance. To facilitate this
integrated analysis we adopt the configurational view of fit from the organisational theory
literature. The configurational approach to fit is widely considered to be most appropriate for
analysing complex organisational phenomena (Xu et al., 2006).
Partnership Characteristics and Alliance Success
Selection of an appropriate partner is a very critical decision in an alliance engagement (e.g.,
(Hitt, 2000). Das & Teng (Das et al., 1997) suggest that there must be a certain degree of fit
between the partners, which in turn increases the probability of achieving positive alliance
outcomes. The literature recognises that resource complementarities, partnership compatibility,
and goal congruence jointly capture the key aspects of partnership characteristics that are
integral for alliance success.
Partnership compatibility reflects complementarities in senior management philosophies and
practices, alliance experience, organizational culture, and even firm size. Compatibility
between partners fosters and facilitates the reconciliation of differences between partners (De
la Sierra, 1995). Kanter (1997) concludes that the compatibility of partners to adapt to each
others cultures, management practices, and procedures are likely to lessen the probability of
alliance failure. Incompatibility among partners may lead to a counterproductive working
relationship characterized by strife and suspicion.
Goal congruence is a crucial element which affects the extent to which business orientations,
abilities and activities of partners can be integrated successfully (Spekman et.al. 1998). In an
alliance context, partners may have both private and common aims. But, any private aim must
not be incompatible of the goals of the alliance itself. Alliance success depends on the
establishment and execution of clearly defined goals, and to achieve these goals, well-defined
procedures must be clearly developed by the partnering firms.
One of the most commonly cited motives for forming alliances by firms is to gain access to
complementary resources and capabilities (e.g., Chung, 2000; Varadarajan & Cunningham,
1995. Studies have shown a strong relationship between complementarity and performance
2

(Bleeke & Ernst, 1991, Harrigan, 1985, Sarkar et. al. 2001). Research by Sarkar et. al (2001)
showed that when alliance partners pool together complementary resources and capabilities, it
enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the performance of the partners both directly and
indirectly.
Relationship Management and Alliance Success
Extant literature identifies commitment, cooperation, communication, trust, and conflict
management as the key determinants for the development of an effective long term inter-firm
relationship (e.g., Cobianchi, 1994; Cravens, Shipp, & Cravens, 1993; Spekman et al., 1998).
Scholars depict trust as an important lubricant in organisational relationships (e.g. Dwyer, 1987
Ganesan, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Trust can increase cooperation, improve relationship
flexibility, augment quality of relationship, and lower costs of coordinating activities (Smith,
Carroll, & Ashford, 1995). Previous studies on alliances have identified trust as one of the
most important critical factors affecting alliance performance (e.g. Becerra, Lunnan and
Huemer, 2008; Bleeke, 1993; Harrigan, 1986; Saxton, 1997).
Cooperation offers significant advantages for alliance partners lacking in particular
competencies or resources (Child, 1998; Dyer & Singh, 1998). Lado, Boyd and Hanlon (1997)
suggest that firms exhibiting cooperative behaviour seek mutual benefits by pooling
complementary resources, skills and capabilities.
Commitment is a critical element of relationship capital (Madhok, 1995). Committed partners
are likely to be more cooperative, communicative and flexible and demonstrate persistent
willingness to make future relation- specific investments (e.g., Anderson, 1992). Studies have
also found that the alliance partners can maximise their returns by establishing relational norms
through commitment that include both flexibility and solidarity (Gundlach & Murphy, 1993;
Mavondo & Rodrigo, 2001; Mohr et al., 1994).
In order to achieve the benefits of collaboration, effective communications between partners
are essential (e.g.,Cummings, 1984; Ohmae, 1989). Successful communication is also crucial
in resolving disagreements; speeding decision-making and achieving shared understanding of
alliance goals. Inherent interdependencies and diverse goals of the partnering firms can create
conflict in an alliance. When firms build relational capital in conjunction with an integrative
approach to managing conflict, they are able to achieve alliance objectives (Kale, Singh, &
Perlmutter, 2000).
Organisational Capabilities and Alliance Success
Organisational capability is a broad concept with many elements and attributes. Barney
(Barney, 2002) defines organisational capabilities as the firm attributes that enable
organisations to coordinate and utilise their resources. Hoskisson, Hitt & Ireland (2004) refer to
capabilities as: the capacity to perform task or activity in an integrated manner. Other
scholars (e.g., Amit, 1993), Grant, 1991; Teece, Pissano, & Shuen, 1997) have defined
organisational capabilities as a firms capacity to deploy assets, tangible or intangible, to
perform a task or activity to improve performance. Examples include the capability to offer
customer service or to develop new products, and innovate through learning (Lorenzoni &
Lipparini, 1999). In essence, it is the ability of the organisations to reconfigure and recombine
organisational resources with that of the resources and capabilities that are available through
partnerships. For example, availability of resources through the alliance is important in
developing organisational capabilities but resources alone do not determine successful alliance
outcome. It is the pattern and quality of interactions between the marketing orientation,
organisational learning, innovativeness and alliance capability that would impact upon
3

performance. When organisations do not have the capabilities for transforming alliance
resources into valuable products or services, the acquired resources are likely to become
overhead, rather than assets to the organisation (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). Therefore, in this
study, organisational capabilities include marketing orientation, learning orientation,
innovativeness and alliance capability.
Hypotheses Development
This study examines strategic fit or coalignment among partnership characteristics (partner
compatibility, goal congruence, complementarity of resources and capabilities), relationship
management (Lambe, Wittmann, & Spekman, 2001 communication and conflict management),
organisational capabilities (market orientation, learning orientation, innovative practices and
alliance capability) and tests implications of these factors on alliance success. The expectation
is that the effectiveness of an alliance is dependent upon aligning all the predictors of alliance
success. Therefore, the following two hypotheses are developed:
H1: Partnership characteristics, relationship management, and organisational capabilities
significantly load on coalignment
H2: Coalignment is significantly and positively related to alliance performance
It is believed that the modelling of coalignment can be challenged on at least two grounds. The
first concern relates to the relationship between partnership characteristics, relationship
management, organisational capabilities and alliance success. Unless one tests the alternative
direct effects model, it is difficult to establish that coalignment among the predictors is crucial
and provides superior information. The second concern relates to the possibility of all the
indicators (Cravens et al., 1993) being the dimensions of coalignment i.e. coalignment being
conceptualised and operationalised as a second order latent variable with all the dimensions of
alliance success being its predictors. Hence, below are the hypotheses H3 and H4.
H3: The direct effect model is superior to or equivalent to the coalignment model
H4: All the indicators in the model are indicators of coalignment as a superordinate second
order factor
Methods: Sample and Procedures
The data were collected for this study via a mail survey from large Australian manufacturing
and services firms who are engaged in alliances. The effective response rate was 23.5%. The
extrapolation procedure suggested by Armstrong and Overton (Armstrong & Overton, 1977)
was used to assess non-response bias. No significant differences were found between early and
late respondents on the study constructs. For the measurement of partnership characteristics,
relationship management, alliance capability, and alliance success multi items were developed
using seven point Likert scale. Most of the items were adopted from previous alliance studies.
The Cronbach alphas were high ( >.8) and all showed adequate discriminant validity. Three
models were developed (1) to test the direct effects model; (2) to test for the coalignment
model and (3) to test coalignment as a super ordinate or latent construct designed to rule out
rival interpretations of the coalignment model and strengthen the findings. The measurement
properties were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the model fits well as
indicated by the results shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary statistics of the measurement model

Model fit indexes

2 = 118.964, df=55 , 2/df = 2.63 , GFI=.921 , AGFI= .868,

NFI= .914, TLI= .930 , CFI=.951, RMSEA= .076
1. Partner compatibility
2. Goal congruence
= .843
3. Resources
4. Capabilities
Relationship management
1. Trust
2. Cooperation
= .873
3. Commitment
4. Communication
5. Conflict management
Organisational capabilities
1. Market orientation
2. Learning orientation
= .913
3. Innovative practices
4. Alliance capability
SFL = standardised factor loading; ***p<.0001
Construct and Alpha,
Model 1
Partner characteristics

SFL*

t-value

.368
.819
.619
.647
.526
.732
.685
.816
.708
.835
.769
.812
.567

4.072***
7.669***
12.255***
11.325***
6.572***
11.081***
10.395***
9.543***
8.058***
10.965***
13.788***
14.023***
7.771***

Table 2: Correlation values between the constructs (N=204)

Variable
1. Partner characteristics
2. Relationship management
3. Organisational capabilities
4. Alliance success
Mean
Standard Deviation
**p<0.01

1
1.000
.526**
.532**
.512**
3.92
.77

1.000
.562**
.545**
5.27
.77

1.000
.649**
4.70
.80

1.000
3.90
1.25

Results and Discussion

Fundamental to testing the strategic fit relationship among the underlying alliance success
factors is the demonstration that coalignment is positively and significantly related to alliance
performance. As displayed in Table 3, the coalignment model indicates that all the
hypothesised factors that need to be coaligned or matched significantly load on coalignment.
This supports H1. The relationship between coalignment and alliance success is significant
(p<.001). This lends strong support to H2. This is fundamental to the conceptualisation and
operationalisation of coalignment. Furthermore, all the indicators of the factors are significant
(p<.001) indicating strong support for the measurement part of the model.
Table 3: Relationship between Partnership Characteristics, relationship management,
organisational capabilities and alliance success
Variables

Std.
estimates

t-value

Direct effect model

Partner characteristics => Alliance success
1
.300
4.181***
Relationship management => Alliance success
2
.372
4.964***
Organisational capabilities => Alliance success
3
.502
6.600***
2 = 414.780, df=101 , 2/df = 4.106 , GFI=.799 , AGFI= .729 , NFI= .775, TLI= .782 , CFI=.816, RMSEA= .123

Coalignment model
Alliance success => Coalignment
1
.839
6.897***
Partner characteristics => Coalignment
1
.808
6.426***
Relationship management => Coalignment
2
.796
6.306***
Organisational capabilities => Coalignment
3
.819
6.681***
2 = 212.179, df=95 , 2/df = 2.233 , GFI=.893 , AGFI=.847 , NFI= .886, TLI= .917 , CFI=.934, RMSEA= .077
*p <.05; **p<.01; ***p<.0001

The fit statistics of direct effect model in Table 3 suggest that the coalignment model fits much
better than the direct effect model. These statistics clearly demonstrate the benefits of pursuing
a holistic strategy and process in the selection, formation and management of alliances. This
leads to the rejection of H3. Therefore, the direct effect model as an alternative to the
coalignment model is indefensible. Finally, the fit statistics of the rival model positing
coalignment as a superordinate or higher order factor had 2 = 196.178, df.= 62 , 2/df. = 3.164
, GFI = .773, AGFI =.714 , NFI=.847 , TLI =.870 , CFI= .867 , RMSEA = .113, suggesting
that the conceptualisation of coalignment as a superordinate or higher order factor for all the
items in the model may perhaps be rejected. The findings lead to the rejection of H4.
Conclusion
This study sought to investigate whether strategic fit as coalignment or covriation is superior to
the direct effects model in explaining alliance success. The results suggest that coaligning the
various factors relating to alliance formation, relationship management, and partnering firms
organisational capabilities has significant performance benefits. It implies that higher the
degree of coalignment the better the alliance performance. This allows alliance managers to
focus on the job of reconciling potentially conflicting alliance strategies. We suggest further
research applying this approach by adding other variables such as environment, industry
structure and strategy typology to test the superiority of this model. Further validation of this
approach would allow comparisons of findings that would extend the theory building process.
References
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., Day, G. S., Lawley, M., & Stewart, D., 2007. Marketing Research
(Second ed.): John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Achrol, R. S., 1991. Evolution of the marketing organization: New forms for turbulent
environments. Journal of Marketing, 55(October), 77-93.
Ahern, R., 1993. The role of strategic alliances in the international organization industry.
Environment and Planning A, 25, 1229-1246.
Alvarez, S. A. & Barney, J. B., 2001. How entrepreneural firms can benefit from alliances with
large partners. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 139-148.
Amit, R. & Schoemaker, P. J., 1993. Strategic assets and organisational rent. Strategic
Management Journal, 14, 33-46.
Anderson, E., 1990. Two firms, one Frontier: On assessing joint venture performance. Sloan
Management Review, 31(2), 19-30.
Anderson, E. & Weitz, B., 1992. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in
distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(Feb.), 18-34.

Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T., 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14(August), 396-402.
Barney, J., 2002. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Barringer, B. R. & Harrison, J. S., 2000. Walking a tightrope: Creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367-403.
Becerra, M., Lunnan, R., & Huemer, L. 2008. Trustworthiness, risk and the transfer of tacit and
explicit knowledge between alliance partners. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 691-713.
Bleeke, J. & Ernst, D., 1991. The way to Win in Cross-Border Alliances. Harvard Business
Review, Nov. - Dec., 127- 135.
Bleeke, J. & Ernst, D. R., 1993. Collaborating to Compete. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Child, J. & Faulkner, D., 1998. The evolving alliance, Chapter 14. In J. Child & D. Faulkner
(Eds.), Strategies of cooperation: Managing alliances, networks and joint ventures. New York:
Oxford University Press Inc.
Chung, S. A., Singh, H., & Lee, K., 2000. Complementarity, status similarity and social capital
as drivers fo alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 1-22.
Cobianchi, T. T., 1994. Relationships among strategic alliance factors and strategic alliance
success. Unpublished Unpublished PhD dissertation, U.S. International University, San Diego,
Calif.
Cravens, D. W., Shipp, S. H., & Cravens, K. S., 1993. Analysis of Co-operative
interorganiszational relationships, strategic alliance formation, and strategic alliance
effectiveness. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1, 55-70.
Cravens, D. W. & Cravens, K. S., 2000. Horizontal alliances for relationship marketing. In J.
N. Sheth & A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook of Relationship Marketing, 431-455: Sage
Publications.
Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Sakano, T., 2000. Success through commitment and trust: The
soft side of strategic alliance management. Journal of World Business, 35(3), 223-240.
Das, T. K. & Teng., B.-S., 1997. Sustaining strategic alliances: Options and guidelines. Journal
of General Management, 22(4), 49-64.
De la Sierra, C. M., 1995. Managing Global Alliances: Key steps for Successful Collaboration.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P., 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational
effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6),
1196-1250.
Drazin, R. & Ven, A. H. V. d., 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514-539.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S., 1987. Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 15(April), 11-27.
Dyer, H. J. & Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660679.
Ganesan, S., 1994. Determinants of long term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal
of Marketing, 58(2), 1-19.
Grant, R. M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
Gressov, C. & Drazin, R., 1997. Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organisation design.
Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 403-428.
Gundlach, G. T. & Murphy, P. E., 1993. Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketing
exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 57(October), 35-46.
Harbison, J. R. & Pekar, P., 1998. Smart Alliances: A Practical Guide to Repeatable Success.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Harrigan, K. R., 1985. Strategies for Joint ventures. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Harrigan, K. R., 1986a. Managing Joint Venture Success. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Harrigan, K. R., 1988b. Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries. Management International
Review, 28(Special issue), 53-72.
Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Edhec, J.-L. A., & Borza, A., 2000. Partner selection in
emerging and developed market contexts: Resoruce-based and organizational learning
perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 449-467.
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D., 2004. Competing for advantage: Thomson:
South Western.
Hughes, J. & Weiss, J. 2007. Simple rules for making alliance work. Harvard Business
Review, 85(11), 122-131.
Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H., 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in
strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 217-237.
Kanter, R. M., 1997. The power of partnering. Sales and Marketing Management, 149(6), 2628.
Koza, M. & Lewin, A. Y., 2000. Managing partnerships and strategic alliances: raising the
odds of success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 146-151.
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C., 1997. Competition, Cooperation, and the search for
economic rents: A Syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110-141.
8

Lambe, C. J., Wittmann, C. M., & Spekman, R. E., 2001. Social exchange theory and research
on business-to-business relational exchange. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(3),
1-36.
Lorange, P. & Roos, J., 1993. Strategic Alliances: Formation, Implementation and Evolution.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Lorenzoni, G. & Lipparini, A., 1999. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as distinctive
organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 317-338.
Madhok, A., 1995. "Revisiting multinational firms" Tolerance for joint ventures: A trust based
approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1), 117-138.
Madhok, A. & Tallman, S. B., 1998. Resources, transactions and rents: Managing value
through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science, 9(3), 326-339.
Mavondo, F. T. & Rodrigo, E. M., 2001. The effect of relationship dimensions on interpersonal
and interorganizational commitment on organizations conducting business between Australia
and China. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 111-121.
Mohr, J. & Spekman, R., 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal,
15(2), 135-152.
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Ohmae, K., 1989. The global logic of strategic alliances. Harvard Business Review, 67(2) 143154.
Parkhe, A., 1998. Understanding trust in international alliances. Journal of World Business,
33(3), 219-240.
Sarkar, M., Echambadi, R., Cavusgil, S. T., & Aulakh, P. S., 2001. The influence of
complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 358-373.
Saxton, T., 1997. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 443-461.
Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J., 1995. Intra and Interorganizational cooperation:
Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 7-23.
Spekman, R. E., III, T. M. F., Isabella, L. A., & MacAvoy;, T. C., 1998. Alliance management:
A view from the past and a look to the future. The Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 747772.

Teece, D. J., Pissano, G., & Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabiliities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(August), 509-533.
Varadarajan, P. R. & Cunningham, M. H., 1995. Strategic Alliances: A Synthesis of
Conceptual Foundations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 282-296.
Venkatraman, N., 1990. Performance implications of strategic coalignment: A methodological
perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 27(1), 19-41.
Venkatraman, N. & Prescott, J. E., 1990. Environment-Strategy coalignment: An empirical test
of its performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 1-23.
Vohries, D. W. & Morgan, N. A., 2003. A configuration theory assessment of marketing
organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance.
Journal of Marketing, 67(January), 100-115.
Xu, S., Cavusgil, S. T., & White, J. C., 2006. The impact of strategic fit among strategy,
structure and processes on multinational corporation performance: A multimethod assessment.
Journal of International Marketing, 14(2), 1-31.

10