Alliances
et al. (2002), and Ring and Van de Ven (1992,
SIEGFRIED P. GUDERGAN
The concept of alliance has been used widely in
a variety of contexts with definitions generally
being discipline-bound. Theoretical and empir-
ical research into alliances has had extensive
interdisciplinary appeal. Research into alliances
has been conducted in a multitude of disciplines,
including sociology, psychology, economics,
political science, law, strategic management, and
organizational behavior. The word alliance has
a set of meanings, including a confederation
described as the act of forming an alliance; a
formal agreement establishing an association
or alliance between nations or other groups to
achieve a particular aim; a coalition, being an
organization of people, nations, or businesses
involved in a pact or treaty; a bond, being a con-
nection based on kinship or common interest; and
a confederation as a state of being allied or con-
federated. We define alliances as a unified effort
involving two or more organizations, groups,
or individuals to achieve common goals with
respect to a particular issue. This view of alliances
is closely related to its sociological roots and
suggests that an alliance has a number of defining
features. First, an alliance brings together two
or more individual parties – whether people or
organizations. Second, an alliance requires these
parties to be interconnected in some way with
resource dependencies. Interconnectedness is a
state of being connected reciprocally. Third, the
alliance must share common goals, interests, or
values. Fourth, there is an assumption that the
individual parties maintain at least some level of
autonomy.
The functioning of alliances involving autonomous not in writing and are not signed by the parties,
parties is based on shared norms and behavioral
expectations (Macneil 1980). Drawing on socio-
logical foundations, researchers such as Macaulay
(1963) and Macneil (1978, 1980, 1981) have
examined behavior in alliances being shaped by
norms, obligations, and reciprocity. The work of
Clegg and his co-authors (2002) on alliance cul-
tures and associated value systems supports this
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Edited by George Ritzer.
© 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosa042
notion; so do Dyer and Singh (1998), Gudergan
1994). Common to a lot of work is that alliances
can be characterized by social dilemmas where
one party’s interest can be in possible conflict
with the common interest of the alliance.
Social relations that underlie alliances explain
the nature of the connection between the par-
ties to an alliance and possible tensions. These
relations are characterized by different levels of
chemistry, politics, and associated political and
professional relations, dealings and communi-
cations. They are associated with human action
and activity within groups and can be viewed as a
union of political organization comprising social
and political units. This suggests that an alliance
is the state of being allied or confederated, reflect-
ing unification and coalition. Associated bonds
reflect the attachment representing a connection
that fastens alliance activities. Group actions, or
activities by the parties in alliances, are those
taken by a group of individuals and/or organi-
zations. While such actions are associated with
transactions and communalism, they are also
characterized by embedded conflict.
Social control plays a vital role in alliances and
is defined as the control exerted actively or pas-
sively by group action. Such control in alliances
is reflected in the power, management, and lead-
ership occurring in alliances affecting duties,
responsibilities, obligations, and accountabili-
ties. Social and other institutional enforcement
mechanisms applying to the alliance influence
the extent of compliance with agreements.
Agreements entailing explicit and implicit
understandings result from oral and written
alliance statements of an exchange of promises.
Oral alliance contracts are agreements that are
but are real, existing contracts that lack only
the formal requirement of a memorandum to
render them enforceable in litigation. Written
agreements are legal documents summarizing the
agreement between parties. Associated alliance
communications, messages, and contents are
subject to the parties’ social interpretations. The
resultant social contract is an implicit agreement
2 A LLIANCES
among people within the alliance that results in
the organization of alliance activities.
Mental processes of the alliance parties include
interaction and internalization processes. Inter-
personal chemistry – the way individuals relate
to each other in the alliance – affects the nature
of social relations and the extent to which mental
processes result in implied alliance contracts.
Implied contracts in alliances assume a meeting
of minds and community of interests. Political
relations – social relations involving author-
ity and power – in turn influence compliance
with implied alliance contracts. Legal rela-
tions – professional relations that are regulated
by law and are based on the fiduciary sys-
tem – influence how one alliance party justifiably
places reliance on the other, whose contribution
is sought in some manner. Reliance on alliance
agreements is based on an understanding char-
acterized by comprehension, discernment, and
empathy. These social settings explain the process
by which explicit and implicit agreements are
formed and social or implied contracts evolve
that affect compliance with alliance agreements.
The potential existence of ethnocentricity and
individualistic and selfish action can be counter-
balanced by procedures that secure a dialectical
process toward increased tolerance and mutual
understanding (Etzioni 1988). The interaction
patterns developed through procedures of com-
municative activities are used as the basis on
which alliance norms can be created. These
norms give predictability in the specific setting of
future alliance action, and managers responsible
for the exchange serve as guarantors of norm
fulfillment.
Although established alliance-specific norms
may result in well-functioning alliances, the
creation of such norms may demand substantial
effort at the personal level, particularly when it
involves parties from different macro-cultures.
Hence, personal relationships and reputations
between boundary-spanning alliance parties play
an important role in facilitating and enhancing
the functioning of the alliance. There is also risk
involved in increased manager–organization
dependency where the alliance is too closely
connected to the specific individuals involved in
the process.
The development of alliance norms is con-
sistent with interactional psychology (Endler &
Magnusson 1976) and social psychology (Kelman
1961). The interaction of parties and associated
oral alliance contracts leads to a sense of obliga-
tion and de facto accountability that is based on
social norms. In addition, the specification and
acceptance of written alliance contracts result in
parties forming an informal understanding of
alliance prerogatives. Important to note here is
that each party to the alliance might interpret a
written contract differently because of ambiguity
and differences in their macro-culture. As such,
the informal understanding about carrying out
obligations may be viewed differently by the
other party to the alliance. This understand-
ing is mirrored in a sense of obligations and
de jure accountability that is based on a fidu-
ciary system. A party’s sense of obligation and
accountability – embedded in the implied alliance
contract – increases with the bi-directional com-
munications in the alliance. While parties form a
sense of obligation and accountability, they also
form expectations about the other party’s sense
of obligation and accountability. This in turn
influences the confidence in that party devoting
appropriate inputs to the alliance.
In summary, alliances are socially embedded
where this embeddedness determines processes
that characterize the alliance. The specific under-
standings underlying the alliance functioning are
socially constructed, resulting in the parties’ sense
of obligation and accountability that comprise
the implied alliance contract.
SEE ALSO: Alliances (Racial/Ethnic); Manage-
ment; Management Networks; Networks; Organi-
zations as Social Structures; Social Control
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED
READINGS
Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T., Rura-Polley, T., & Marosszeky,
M. (2002) Governmentality Matters: Designing an
Alliance Culture of Inter-Organizational Collabo-
ration for Managing Projects. Organization Studies
23(3): 317–37.
Dyer, J. & Singh, H. (1998) The Relational View: Coop-
erative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational
Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management
Review 23(4): 660–79.
 A LLIANCES
Endler, N. & Magnusson, D. (1976) Toward an Inter-
actional Psychology of Personality. Psychological Bul-
letin 83: 956–74.
Etzioni, A. (1988) Normative-Affective Factors: Toward
a New Decision-Making Model. Journal of Economic
Psychology 9(2): 125–50.
Gudergan, S., Devinney, T., & Ellis, S. R. (2002) An Inte-
grated Theory of Alliance Governance and Perfor-
mance. In: Trick, M. A. (Ed.), Mergers, Acquisitions,
Alliances and Networks. Carnegie Mellon University
Press, Pittsburgh.
Kelman, H. C. (1961) Process of Opinion Change. Pub-
lic Opinion Quarterly 25: 57–78.
Macaulay, S. (1963) Non-Contractual Relations in
Business: A Preliminary Study. American Economic
Review 28(1): 55–69.
Macneil, I. R. (1978) Contracts: Adjustment of
Long-Term Economic Relations Under Classical,
Neoclassical and Relational Contract Law. North-
western University Law Review 72: 854–905.
3
Macneil, I. R. (1980) The New Social Contract: An
Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations. Yale Uni-
versity Press, New Haven.
Macneil, I. R. (1981) Economic Analysis of Contractual
Relations: Its Shortfalls and the Need for a “Rich Clas-
sificatory Apparatus.” Northwestern University Law
Review 75(6): 1018–63.
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. (1992) Structuring Cooper-
ative Relationships Between Organizations. Strategic
Management Journal 13: 483–98.
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. (1994) Developmental
Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Rela-
tionships. Academy of Management Review 19(1):
90–118.
Tetlock, P. (1985) Accountability: The Neglected Social
Context of Judgment and Choice. Research in Orga-
nizational Behavior 7: 297–332.