Table 2. PLUM Results. Model a Model b Coefficient Coefficient (Std. Error) (Std. Error) Capabilities: Coordination 0. 274*** (0. 051) Communication 0. 207*** (0. 054) Bonding -0. 047 (0. 050) RBV Controls: Brand Reputation -0. 178*** -0. 151** (0. 050) (0. 051) Management Experience -0. 013** -0. 013* (0. 005) (0. 005) Slack Capital -0. 122* -0. 109* (0. 053) (0. 054) OE Controls: Asset Specifity 0. 134** 0. 124* (0. 051) (0. 053) Specific Knowledge -0. 163** -0. 173** (0. 050) (0. 051) Geographic Dispersion -0. 018 -0. 039 (0. 050) (0. 053) Other Controls: Relationship Duration 0. 055** 0. 030* (0. 019) (0. 019) Firm Size 0. 000 0. 000 (0. 000) (0. 000) Industry 0. 305† 0. 142† (0. 221) (0. 210) F Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2 N 301 301 Significance levels (two-tailed): *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; p < 0.1. † Hit rate: 81.4% of cases classified correctly. Firms that had not entered in any business relationships in the last three years excluded from this analysis. The PLUM results document that those firms that have high coordination and communication capabilities, as predicted by H2, engage in more intense cooperation. Yet, bonding capabilities appear to decrease network involvement rather (but the coefficient is insignificant); eventually, given that firms’ capability perceptions are accurate, those firms scoring high on bonding capabilities are more easily exploited by opportunistic partners. Hence, for these firms, risks associated with cooperations may become all the more pronounced.
Table 2. PLUM Results. Model a Model b Coefficient (Std. Error) Coefficient (Std. Error) Capabilities: Coordination 0. (0. 274*** 051) Communication 0. (0. 207*** 054) Bonding -0. (0. 047 050) RBV Controls: Brand Reputation -0. (0. 178*** 050) -0. (0. 151** 051) Management Experience -0. (0. 013** 005) -0. (0. 013* 005) Slack Capital -0. (0. 122* 053) -0. (0. 109* 054) OE Controls: Asset Specifity 0. (0. 134** 051) 0. (0. 124* 053) Specific Knowledge -0. (0. 163** 050) -0. (0. 173** 051) Geographic Dispersion -0. (0. 018 050) -0. (0. 039 053) Other Controls: Relationship Duration 0. (0. 055** 019) 0. (0. 030* 019) Firm Size 0. (0. 000 000) 0. (0. 000 000) Industry 0. (0. 305† 221) 0. (0. 142† 210) F Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2 N 301 301 Significance levels (two-tailed): *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1. Hit rate: 81.4% of cases classified correctly. Firms that had not entered in any business relationships in the last three years excluded from this analysis. The PLUM results document that those firms that have high coordination and communication capabilities, as predicted by H2, engage in more intense cooperation. Yet, bonding capabilities appear to decrease network involvement rather (but the coefficient is insignificant); eventually, given that firms’ capability perceptions are accurate, those firms scoring high on bonding capabilities are more easily exploited by opportunistic partners. Hence, for these firms, risks associated with cooperations may become all the more pronounced.
Ehrmann_Meiseberg.docx