Introduction
Some current authors link the overconfidence bias to negative outcomes, including failed collaboration and the inability to account for all parties’ financial and strategic interests. As per Russo and Cesarani (2017), in strategic alliances, the spirit of collaboration is reduced due to some partners’ insufficient familiarity with collaborative relations’ 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 latter’s lack of overconfidence increases the chances of achieving the state in which all players get optimal results without deviating from their initial strategies – the Nash equilibrium. Overconfidence is also framed as a “detrimental effect of trust” in strategic alliances (Kostis and Näsholm, 2018, p. 116). Interestingly, as per the case of the Etihad Airways equity alliance, the CEO’s overconfidence was a factor in failed acquisitions (Jory et al., 2019). Because of the findings’ 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 entrepreneurs’ increased investment in their firm’s growth regardless of the presence of strategic partners and such partners’ objective skills, and Ng (2020) links this effect with the confirmation bias and excessive persistence in terms of one’s 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 parties’ 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 alliances’ 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 companies’ 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 firm’s success. Also, Hakenes and Katolnik (2018) demonstrate that overconfidence partially resolves the free-rider problem by increasing parties’ 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 party’s 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, CEOs’ 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 sides’ 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 firms’ 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 partners’ attempts to simplify decision-making by accepting some values or strategic goals as a reference point hinder strategic alliances’ 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 “a risk-averse orientation for expansion” 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 firms’ strategic alliance portfolios and drastically reduce associated investments. Kang and Zaheer (2018) also highlight the phenomenon’s 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 decisions’ quality.
Risk Aversion and Searching for and Disciplining Strategic Partners
Decision-makers’ risk aversion is not necessarily a hindrance when it comes to strategic alliances’ 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 partners’ 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 firms’ 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 manager’s predisposition to overconfidence, whereas Malhotra et al. (2018) report that in decisions peculiar to international strategic partnerships, CEOs’ 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 biases’ co-occurrence.
Reference List
Allmendinger, M.P. and Berger, E.S. (2020) ‘Selecting corporate firms for collaborative innovation: entrepreneurial decision making in asymmetric partnerships’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 24(1), pp. 1-35.
Chen, J.S., Elfenbein, D.W., Posen, H.E. and Wang, M.Z. (2019) ‘Organizational design, overconfidence, and learning in entrepreneurial teams’, 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) ‘The 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) ‘A behavioural game theory perspective on the collaboration between innovative and entrepreneurial firms’, 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) ‘Anchoring effect in managerial decision-making in accountants and managers: an experimental study’, Revista Brasiliera de Estrategia, 11(3), pp. 425-445.
Dias, N., Avila, M., Campani, C. H. and Maranho, F. (2019) ‘The heuristic of representativeness and overconfidence bias in entrepreneurs’, Latin American Business Review, pp. 1–24.
Gebrekidan, D.A. and Mukhtar, S.M. (2017) ‘Determinants of the international strategic alliance process and alliance failure: learning from the Volvo-Renault break-up’, International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 6(1-2), pp. 86-110.
Hakenes, H. and Katolnik, S. (2018) ‘Optimal team size and overconfidence’, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(4), pp. 665-687.
Hyndman, K. (2021) ‘Dissolving partnerships under risk: an experimental investigation’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 185, pp. 702-720.
Jory, S.R., Benamraoui, A., Tunahan, H. and Çitçi, U.S. (2019) ‘A critical examination of Etihad Airways equity alliance strategy using a case study approach’, pp. 1-38.
Kang, R. and Zaheer, A. (2018) ‘Determinants of alliance partner choice: network distance, managerial incentives, and board monitoring’, Strategic Management Journal, 39(10), pp. 2745-2769.
Kostis, A. and Näsholm, H.M. (2018) ‘Balancing trust and distrust in strategic alliances’, in Das, T.K. (ed.), Managing trust in strategic alliances. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 103-127.
Lai, J.H. (2020) ‘Does difference in CEO overconfidence propensity create value in strategic alliances?’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), p. 19458.
Lai, J.H., Lin, W.C. and Chen, L.Y. (2017) ‘The influence of CEO overconfidence on ownership choice in foreign market entry decisions’, International Business Review, 26(4), pp. 774-785.
Lee, J. (2020) ‘Estimating the benefits and costs of forming business partnerships’, The RAND Journal of Economics, 51(2), pp. 531-562.
Lee, L.S. and Zhong, W. (2020) ‘Responses to alliance partners’ misbehavior and firm performance in China: the moderating roles of Guanxi orientation’, Asian Business & Management, 19(3), pp. 344-378.
Li, W.S. (2018) ‘Creating value through strategic alliances’, In Strategic management accounting: a practical guidebook with case studies. Singapore: Springer, pp. 193-216.
Malhotra, S., Morgan, H.M. and Zhu, P. (2018) ‘Sticky decisions: anchoring and equity stakes in international acquisitions’, Journal of Management, 44(8), pp. 3200-3230.
Ng, D. (2020) ‘Looking forward instead of backward: overconfidence, forward-looking aspirations and exploitive/explorative search’, Journal of Strategy and Management, 13(3), pp. 377-392.
Oksoy, A.S., Bennett, A.A., Nair, A. and Klinger, R.L. (2019) ‘Dealing with angels: the anchoring effect’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), p. 17882.
Opper, S., Nee, V. and Holm, H.J. (2017) ‘Risk aversion and guanxi activities: a behavioral analysis of CEOs in China’, Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), pp. 1504-1530.
Osiyevskyy, O., Tao, Q.T., Jiang, R.J. and Santoro, M.D. (2017) ‘Opportunity is in the eye of beholder: behavioral drivers of alliance portfolio adaptation to performance and environmental jolts’, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(2), pp. 115-127.
Russo, M. and Cesarani, M. (2017) ‘Strategic alliance success factors: a literature review on alliance lifecycle’, International Journal of Business Administration, 8(3), pp. 1-9.
Singh, R.P. (2020) ‘Overconfidence: a common psychological attribute of entrepreneurs which leads to firm failure’, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), pp. 25-39.
Ullah, I., Awais, M., Jebran, K. and Abidy, M.M. (2017) ‘Overconfidence behavior and managerial decisions: evidence from Pakistan’, Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 8(3), pp. 28-35. Web.