Commitment, Learning, and Alliance Performance: A Formal Analysis Using an Agent-Based Network Formation Model

Current theoretical arguments highlight a dilemma faced by actors who either adopt a weak or strong commitment strategy for managing their alliances and partnerships. Actors who pursue a weak commitment strategy—that is, immediately abandon current partners when a more profitable alternative is presented—are more likely to identify the most rewarding alliances. On the other hand, actors who enact a strong commitment approach are more likely to take advantage of whatever opportunities can be found in existing partnerships. Using agent-based modeling, we show that actors who adopt a moderate commitment strategy overcome this dilemma and outperform actors who adopt either weak or strong commitment approaches. We also show that avoiding this dilemma rests on experiencing a related tradeoff: moderately-committed actors sacrifice short-term performance for the superior knowledge and information that allows them to eventually do better. [Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of The Journal of Mathematical Sociology for the following free supplemental resource: Technical Appendix.]

[1]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing , 1999, The New Economic Sociology.

[2]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  Why knowledge does not equal power: the network redundancy trade-off , 2008 .

[3]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[4]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[5]  Fernando Ant Networks, Complementarities, and Transaction Costs: Applications in Finance and Economic Development , 2008 .

[6]  N. Lin,et al.  Social Resources and Strength of Ties: Structural Factors in Occupational Status Attainment , 1981, Social Capital, Social Support and Stratification.

[7]  Brian Uzzi,et al.  Relational Embeddedness and Learning: The Case of Bank Loan Managers and Their Clients , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[8]  Olav Sorenson,et al.  Brokers and Competitive Advantage , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[9]  Roger V. Gould The Origins of Status Hierarchies: A Formal Theory and Empirical Test1 , 2002, American Journal of Sociology.

[10]  Stoyan V. Sgourev,et al.  Peer Capitalism: Parallel Relationships in the U.S. Economy1 , 2006, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  Alfred A. Marcus,et al.  EMBEDDED TIES AND THE ACQUISITION OF COMPETITIVE CAPABILITIES , 2005 .

[12]  J. March Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[13]  Joel M. Podolny,et al.  Resurrecting images from the past? Comment on Reagans and Zuckerman , 2008 .

[14]  Joel Podolny Networks as the Pipes and Prisms of the Market1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[15]  M. Jackson,et al.  A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks , 1996 .

[16]  A. van de Rijt,et al.  Dynamics of Networks if Everyone Strives for Structural Holes1 , 2008, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  L. Royakkers,et al.  Commitment: a game-theoretical and logical perspective , 2002 .

[18]  Sanjeev Goyal,et al.  A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation , 2000 .

[19]  Martin Gargiulo,et al.  Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital , 2000 .

[20]  J. Montgomery Social Networks and Labor-Market Outcomes: Toward an Economic Analysis , 1991 .