Introduction
Some current authors link the overconfidence bias to negative outcomes, including failed collaboration and the inability to account for all partiesâ financial and strategic interests. As per Russo and Cesarani (2017), in strategic alliances, the spirit of collaboration is reduced due to some partnersâ insufficient familiarity with collaborative relationsâ dynamic nature, which could be exacerbated by flawed self-assessment, among other things. Similarly, Chou, Bandera, and Thomas (2017) conclude that in strategic alliances between entrepreneurial and innovative businesses, the latterâs lack of overconfidence increases the chances of achieving the state in which all players get optimal results without deviating from their initial strategies â the Nash equilibrium. Overconfidence is also framed as a âdetrimental effect of trustâ in strategic alliances (Kostis and Näsholm, 2018, p. 116). Interestingly, as per the case of the Etihad Airways equity alliance, the CEOâs overconfidence was a factor in failed acquisitions (Jory et al., 2019). Because of the findingsâ contextual differences and the overconfidence bias being analyzed in isolation, the theme of collaboration failures may need to be researched with attention to the interplay of overconfidence bias and personality-related factors.
Overconfidence, Learning, and Flawed Decision-Making
In some studies, overconfidence is associated with poor strategic decisions and learning capabilities, which can have negative implications for strategic partnerships. Specifically, Singh (2020) mentions that the overconfidence effect results in entrepreneursâ increased investment in their firmâs growth regardless of the presence of strategic partners and such partnersâ objective skills, and Ng (2020) links this effect with the confirmation bias and excessive persistence in terms of oneâs strategic vision. Despite being intuitively correct, such links remain largely theoretical; their role in real-life strategic alliance scenarios remains unexplored, which allows considering them as viable research hypotheses rather than facts. Additionally, Gebrekidan and Mukhtar (2017) note that strategic alliances are strengthened by partiesâ propensity to learn, and it is possible that overestimation, a form of overconfidence, hinders learning in business contexts (Chen et al., 2019). Nevertheless, studies that would summarize multiple strategic partnership cases to demonstrate such connections as a steady trend are lacking, thus creating a knowledge gap.
Asymmetry in Overconfidence Bias and Alliance Success
Apart from the negative implications of overconfidence, some findings imply that this bias can promote alliancesâ success and the initial sympathy between strategic partners if key decision-makers have varying overconfidence levels. In general, the overconfidence effect is more likely in entrepreneurial contexts compared to large organizations (Dias et al., 2019).
As per Allmendinger and Berger (2020), in asymmetric strategic alliances, larger companiesâ openness makes them more attractive as strategic partners. Thus, overconfidence might increase the likelihood of alliance establishment if the overconfident party manages to select and provide statistics that emphasize the firmâs success. Also, Hakenes and Katolnik (2018) demonstrate that overconfidence partially resolves the free-rider problem by increasing partiesâ individual efforts. Finally, according to Lai (2020), in the high-tech industry, alliances between overconfident and non-overconfident CEOs generate more value compared to other instances. The cited findings come from methodologically heterogeneous sources and diverse business contexts, which might limit their applicability to the issue.
Overconfidence Bias and Dominance
Another theme relates to overconfidence as a contributor to one partyâs dominance in partnerships, but whether such effects are positive or negative for strategic alliances remains unknown. In their literature review, Ullah et al. (2017) assume that overconfidence behaviors in managers cause the latter to impose investment, marketing, or strategic development decisions on others, and Chen et al. (2020) regard asymmetry in overconfidence and other biases as a factor that limits equality in partnership voting rights. Also, as per empirical research, in foreign market entry scenarios, CEOsâ overconfidence is positively correlated with attempts to gain full ownership of joint ventures (Lai, Lin and Chen, 2017). To some extent, this dominance might support strategic uniformity in business alliances, but its outcomes definitely require further investigation.
Effects of Anchoring on Strategic Alliances
The Anchoring Effect and Power Dynamics in Strategic Partnerships
In the context of strategic partnerships, the anchoring effect or excessive reliance on specific reference points is sometimes described as a matter of manipulating the distribution of power. Based on empirical research, anchoring can affect up to 96% of professionals involved in managerial decision-making, which could have critical implications for partnerships and setting common goals (Costa et al., 2018). Having explored this bias with reference to the mass media representations of negotiations in entrepreneur-investor partnerships, Oksoy et al. (2019) suggest that anchoring affects the power dynamics by enabling the setting of a standard that would be beneficial for particular participants. Also, the anchoring bias heavily affects the dissolution process peculiar to high-risk strategic partnerships, representing the sidesâ attempts to promote selling prices in the range they find appropriate (Hyndman, 2021). Considering these findings, in strategic alliances, anchoring can promote the interests of the party that initiates strategic collaboration. However, if anchoring is as common as the studies suggest, it might be difficult to draw comparisons between power distribution patterns in real-life partnerships that are and are not affected by this effect, which might require further studies with larger samples.
Anchoring, Analysis, and Uncertainty in Strategic Alliances
Anchoring is also viewed as an essential reaction to uncertainty and an attempt to simplify preliminary analysis in strategic alliance decisions. As per Malhotra, Morgan, and Zhu (2018), in international experiences, including entering multinational joint ventures, anchoring often replaces strategic and financial analysis efforts involving a high cognitive workload, enabling decision-makers to rely on similar firmsâ recent decisions rather than analyzing their specific situation thoroughly. Consequently, the anchoring effect occurs more frequently in uncertain settings and informational deficit cases (Malhotra et al., 2018). In their experiment, Costa et al. (2018) demonstrate increases in anchor prices and values after exposure to positive economic/financial results, which suggests connections between anchoring and overconfidence fueled by the tendency to emphasize positive facts. One critical limitation of the findings above is the absence of information on whether partnersâ attempts to simplify decision-making by accepting some values or strategic goals as a reference point hinder strategic alliancesâ financial success or feasibility.
Effects of Risk Aversion on Strategic Alliances
Risk Aversion as a Barrier to Alliance Establishment and a Choice-Limiting Factor
Risk aversion, the tendency to prefer options with more certain outcomes even if they involve less significant gains, is sometimes cited as a factor that does not promote strategic alliance formation. Strategic alliances are a popular approach to expansion for companies that have âa risk-averse orientation for expansionâ but still seek international development opportunities (Li, 2018, p. 207). However, as per Osiyevskyy et al. (2017), risk aversion can reduce the chances of establishing new strategic partnerships by encouraging managers to avoid further diversification of their firmsâ strategic alliance portfolios and drastically reduce associated investments. Kang and Zaheer (2018) also highlight the phenomenonâs choice-limiting nature; based on their findings, risk aversion is rather high in managers compared to firm owners, which finds reflection in their preference for alliance partner selection decisions that involve minimal undiversified career and employment risks. Nevertheless, it might be reasonable to expect risk aversion to contribute to better strategical alliance decisions, but the studies do not address the issue from the perspective of decisionsâ quality.
Risk Aversion and Searching for and Disciplining Strategic Partners
Decision-makersâ risk aversion is not necessarily a hindrance when it comes to strategic alliancesâ performance. As per empirical research in China conducted by Opper, Nee, and Holm (2017), risk-averse CEOs are less likely to engage in guanxi or social network building activities; among other things, guanxi might support inter-organizational trust in business partnerships and the ability to prevent alliance partnersâ misbehaviors (Lee and Zhong, 2020). At the same time, CEOs that demonstrate risk aversion and still utilize guanxi outperform their non-risk-averse counterparts in terms of firmsâ financial results (Opper et al., 2017). According to Lee (2020), risk-averse agents interested in risk-sharing as the primary motivation behind forming a partnership have significant chances of finding partners that have the same risk preferences. However, whether these findings apply to other socio-cultural contexts other than China is an open question.
Research Gaps: Links between Different Biases
The discussion above sheds light on certain research gaps that inform the need for the planned study of cognitive biases in managers participating in strategic partnerships. Firstly, the aforementioned findings do not provide a clear understanding of whether cognitive biases are more positive or negative in terms of promoting success and smooth cooperation in strategic alliances. Secondly, the discussed literature does not address the question of how the biases from the list interact; conversely, there are conflicting findings regarding the links between managerial overconfidence and other effects. For instance, Costa et al. (2018) state that anchoring in positive information can increase a managerâs predisposition to overconfidence, whereas Malhotra et al. (2018) report that in decisions peculiar to international strategic partnerships, CEOsâ overconfidence reduces the likelihood of anchoring. The planned study will be focused on measuring these biases in managers, which will allow making at least preliminary conclusions regarding the biasesâ co-occurrence.
Reference List
Allmendinger, M.P. and Berger, E.S. (2020) âSelecting corporate firms for collaborative innovation: entrepreneurial decision making in asymmetric partnershipsâ, International Journal of Innovation Management, 24(1), pp. 1-35.
Chen, J.S., Elfenbein, D.W., Posen, H.E. and Wang, M.Z. (2019) âOrganizational design, overconfidence, and learning in entrepreneurial teamsâ, Academy of Management annual meeting proceedings, Briarcliff Manor, the United States.
Chen, J.S., Elfenbein, D.W., Posen, H.E. and Wang, M.Z. (2020) âThe problems and promise of entrepreneurial partnerships: decision making, overconfidence, and learning in founding teams. Academy of Management Review, pp. 1-55.
Chou, P.B., Bandera, C. and Thomas, E. (2017) âA behavioural game theory perspective on the collaboration between innovative and entrepreneurial firmsâ, International Journal of Work Innovation, 2(1), pp. 6-31.
Costa, D.F., de Melo Moreira, B.C., de Melo Carvalho, F. and Silva, W.S. (2018) âAnchoring effect in managerial decision-making in accountants and managers: an experimental studyâ, Revista Brasiliera de Estrategia, 11(3), pp. 425-445.
Dias, N., Avila, M., Campani, C. H. and Maranho, F. (2019) âThe heuristic of representativeness and overconfidence bias in entrepreneursâ, Latin American Business Review, pp. 1â24.
Gebrekidan, D.A. and Mukhtar, S.M. (2017) âDeterminants of the international strategic alliance process and alliance failure: learning from the Volvo-Renault break-upâ, International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 6(1-2), pp. 86-110.
Hakenes, H. and Katolnik, S. (2018) âOptimal team size and overconfidenceâ, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(4), pp. 665-687.
Hyndman, K. (2021) âDissolving partnerships under risk: an experimental investigationâ, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 185, pp. 702-720.
Jory, S.R., Benamraoui, A., Tunahan, H. and Ăitçi, U.S. (2019) âA critical examination of Etihad Airways equity alliance strategy using a case study approachâ, pp. 1-38.
Kang, R. and Zaheer, A. (2018) âDeterminants of alliance partner choice: network distance, managerial incentives, and board monitoringâ, Strategic Management Journal, 39(10), pp. 2745-2769.
Kostis, A. and Näsholm, H.M. (2018) âBalancing trust and distrust in strategic alliancesâ, in Das, T.K. (ed.), Managing trust in strategic alliances. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 103-127.
Lai, J.H. (2020) âDoes difference in CEO overconfidence propensity create value in strategic alliances?â, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), p. 19458.
Lai, J.H., Lin, W.C. and Chen, L.Y. (2017) âThe influence of CEO overconfidence on ownership choice in foreign market entry decisionsâ, International Business Review, 26(4), pp. 774-785.
Lee, J. (2020) âEstimating the benefits and costs of forming business partnershipsâ, The RAND Journal of Economics, 51(2), pp. 531-562.
Lee, L.S. and Zhong, W. (2020) âResponses to alliance partnersâ misbehavior and firm performance in China: the moderating roles of Guanxi orientationâ, Asian Business & Management, 19(3), pp. 344-378.
Li, W.S. (2018) âCreating value through strategic alliancesâ, In Strategic management accounting: a practical guidebook with case studies. Singapore: Springer, pp. 193-216.
Malhotra, S., Morgan, H.M. and Zhu, P. (2018) âSticky decisions: anchoring and equity stakes in international acquisitionsâ, Journal of Management, 44(8), pp. 3200-3230.
Ng, D. (2020) âLooking forward instead of backward: overconfidence, forward-looking aspirations and exploitive/explorative searchâ, Journal of Strategy and Management, 13(3), pp. 377-392.
Oksoy, A.S., Bennett, A.A., Nair, A. and Klinger, R.L. (2019) âDealing with angels: the anchoring effectâ, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), p. 17882.
Opper, S., Nee, V. and Holm, H.J. (2017) âRisk aversion and guanxi activities: a behavioral analysis of CEOs in Chinaâ, Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), pp. 1504-1530.
Osiyevskyy, O., Tao, Q.T., Jiang, R.J. and Santoro, M.D. (2017) âOpportunity is in the eye of beholder: behavioral drivers of alliance portfolio adaptation to performance and environmental joltsâ, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(2), pp. 115-127.
Russo, M. and Cesarani, M. (2017) âStrategic alliance success factors: a literature review on alliance lifecycleâ, International Journal of Business Administration, 8(3), pp. 1-9.
Singh, R.P. (2020) âOverconfidence: a common psychological attribute of entrepreneurs which leads to firm failureâ, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), pp. 25-39.
Ullah, I., Awais, M., Jebran, K. and Abidy, M.M. (2017) âOverconfidence behavior and managerial decisions: evidence from Pakistanâ, Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 8(3), pp. 28-35. Web.