Int. J. Strategic Business Alliances, Vol. 4, No.

1, 2015

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have

over 50% failure rate? A study of relationship quality
of strategic alliances in China, Japan and Mauritius
Mosad Zineldin*
Strategic Relationship Management,
Linnaeus University,
SE-35195 Vxj, Sweden
Email: Mosad.zineldin@lnu.se
*Corresponding author

Hisao Fujimoto
Faculty of Information Technology and Social Sciences,
Osaka University of Economics,
2-2-8, Osumi, Higashiyodogawa-ku, Osaka, Japan
Email: fujimoto@osaka-ue.ac.jp

Yu Li
School of Economics and Business Administration,
Beijing Normal University,
Outer St. 19, Xin Jiekou, Beijing, China
Email: yulidyx@163.com

Hemant Kassean
Faculty of Law and Management,
University of Mauritius,
Reduit, Mauritius
Email: h.kassean@uom.ac.mu

Valentina Vasicheva
School of Business and Economics,
Linnaeus University,
SE-35195 Vxj, Sweden
Email: Vasicheva@yahoo.com

We Feng Yu
University of Shanghai for Science and Technology,
516 Jungong Rd, Yangpu, Shanghai, China
Email: wfy@usst.edu.cn
Copyright 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

M. Zineldin et al.
Abstract: This research explores the importance of quality variables for
achieving high quality in strategic alliance relationship, reasons for strategic
alliance failures and provides insights into their underlying causes. Data for
analysis is generated from 112 managers from different industries in three
countries. Frequency, factor, and regression analysis, reliability tests are used
for data analysis. Multiple item scales based on five qualities model (5Qs) were
developed and adapted. The results suggest that there is an important
interaction between most independent variables and alliance motivations,
length and type of alliance. Quality of atmosphere followed by quality of
interaction was identified as the most important variables to achieve high total
quality of strategic alliance relationship (TQSAR). The proposed 5Qs model
consists of some generic and integrated dimensions. Each quality dimension is
represented by a number of statements/items, intended to represent a specific
quality factor as thoroughly and reliably as possible.
Keywords: strategic alliances; total relationship management; TRM; 5Qs;
marriage; failure; psychology; quality; strategic business alliances.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Zineldin, M., Fujimoto, H.,
Li, Y., Kassean, H., Vasicheva, V. and Yu, W.F. (2015) Why do both
marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate? A study of
relationship quality of strategic alliances in China, Japan and Mauritius, Int. J.
Strategic Business Alliances, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.123.
Biographical notes: Mosad Zineldin is a Professor of Strategic Relationship
Management at the Linnaeus University, Sweden.
Hisao Fujimoto is a Professor of the Faculty of Information Technology and
Social Sciences at the Osaka University of Economics, Japan.
Yu Li is a PhD candidate of the School of Economics and Business
Administration at the Beijing Normal University, China.
Hemant Kassean is a Senior Lecturer of the Faculty of Law and Management at
the University of Mauritius.
Valentina Vasicheva is a Lecturer of the School of Business and Economics at
the Linnaeus University, Sweden.
We Feng Yu is a Professor at the University of Shanghai for Science and
Technology, China.

Introduction

The problem of achieving cooperation among human beings is hardly new. Plato and
Caesar are perhaps as good analysts of cooperation as todays management scholars.
Inter-organisational cooperation and strategic alliance are hardly new either. So, why
todays recovery is of interest?
Few, if any, phenomena in public or private management and organisation have
raised so much scholarly attention in such a short period of time as strategic alliance
relationships. Many studies and researches indicate that between 50% to 77% of mergers
and strategic alliances (SA) fail (Porter, 1987; Cartwright and Cooper, 1995; Park and

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

Ungson, 2001; Valant, 2008). Strategic alliance failure (SAF) often causes serious
damages and several adverse effects to the partners such as disagreements, operational
difficulties and problems, transaction costs to find new partners, anxieties over the loss of
proprietary information and also intangible adverse outcomes such as the loss of
reputation (Park and Ungson, 2001; Hamel, 1991; Zineldin and Dodourova, 2005).
Relationship between people has many common factors with relationship between
organisations (Sambasivan et al., 2012). Zafirovski (2005) states that a relationship
between organisations contains not only utilitarian economic factors but also
psychological behavioural factors (Cartwright and Cooper, 1993, 1995). Social exchange
theory (SET) is based on economical and psychological behaviourism because the
establishing, developing and sustaining human or inter organisational relationships goes
beyond the utilitarian economics.
Inter-organisational cooperation can be examined from a wide range of theoretical
starting points. They include strategic management, organisation theory, economic and
industrial analysis, network theory, game theory, the sociology and psychology theories,
to name only the most obvious. Models of bilateral (e.g., marriage) and multilateral
(e.g., multi-state coalitions) relationships can also be applied to the study of
inter-organisational collaboration. May and Tate (2011) found evidences that cooperative
alliances are determined by economic and social-psychological variables. More
interestingly, the collaboration phenomenon challenges researchers to extend these
theories by highlighting the complexity of the inter-organisational relationships. This
makes strategic alliance research intellectually challenging. This new situation was
brought about by the radical changes in the global economy (Zineldin, 1998; Zineldin and
Bredenlw, 2003; Paavo and Hallikas, 2011).
Cartwright and Cooper (1993, 1995) stated that although there is a well-recognised
and powerful strategic argument for different partnering types such as merger and joint
ventures for competitiveness, the conventional strategic wisdom alone is an insufficient
catalyst for releasing or achieving the synergistic potential of many promising
organisational marriage.
Considering the constant growth of the number of SA in the world and despite high
percentage of failures, it seems that the reasons, which can cause a failure of a strategic
alliance, have to become a focus of special attention. Although the increased interests of
managing SA, the field still theoretically and empirically lacks a framework to describe
the conditions and dynamics leading to the failure of SA (Park and Ungson, 2001;
Zineldin and Dodourova, 2005; Valant, 2008).
Trust and cooperation are critical factors that affect level of the success or failure of
SA (Mellat-Parast and Digman, 2008). Prajogo et al. (2012) found that there is a positive
correlation between the strategic long-term relationship between partners on firms
operational performance which impacts on its delivery, flexibility and costs performance.
While previous research on quality and quality management has focused on the
implementation of quality management within a firm, by extending the concept of quality
management to SA, this paper takes a new approach toward total relationship
management (TRM) implementation outside the traditional view towards quality.
According to our knowledge, there is no research of how to measure strategic alliance
relationship quality (SARQ), determinants, and its consequences based on the
comprehensive 5Q dimensions. Thus, the main task of this research is to measure the
quality of the strategic alliance relationship (QSAR) and identify the key factors that

M. Zineldin et al.

influence strategic alliance outcomes. The aim is to avoid the reasons for failures of SA.
The correlation between the nationality (culture), the size of the organisation, the alliance
motivations and the quality of the strategic alliance relationships (QSAR) are analysed.
The 5 Qualities (5Qs) model and approach are utilised to measure, identify and categorise
the QSAR. Through the study of the quality of the existing alliance relationship one can
draw some conclusions about the possible reasons of failures and the conditions under
which strategic alliance became a competitive weapon.
It is a cross cultural research which considers different industry sectors located in
different countries China, Japan and Mauritius. The choice of the countries is a result of
our networks with different researchers in the above mentioned countries and the
availability and access to the needed data. As part of the study, CEOs from Mauritian
industries also participated in the survey. Although a small country in size, Mauritius is
classified as a middle income country with an emergent consumer market and ranks first
in Africa for global competitiveness (World Economic Forum, 2013). It is often cited as
an example for the African continent. The geographical spreading and cultural
differences provide a good base for the generalisation of the study results and outcomes.
The results will let the partners know whether their relationship has the strength to
withstand the ultimate tests of time and stress.

Romance and business

None of us, nor any company, exists in isolation. A relationship between people often
goes through different stages (e.g., growth, maturity) in its life cycle. Relationships
between companies too, are assumed to go through various phases. Many of the choices
we make and reactions we have are in response to the actions of the other people. In
business markets companies are also often dependent for their development and success
on their relationships with others (Zineldin, 2002).
In many ways, a partnership business relationship is similar to a romantic and
marriage relationship. Corporate entities are much like two people who engage with each
other in what they hope to be a long-lasting and mutually satisfying endeavour. Like a
romantic relationship, a strategic alliance relationship (SAR) progresses through a natural
evolution pattern or relationship life cycle that requires awareness, understanding,
flexibility and agreement from both parties in order to enjoy prosperity (Zineldin, 2002).
Haubrich (1989) describes enduring relationships between banks and borrowers as a
long-term marriage relationship. Zineldin (2000) contributes to the research area by
showing that building and enhancing a relationship is similar to that of a romantic and
marriage relationship. This relationship is a dynamic process which demands actions,
interactions, trust, cooperation, adaptations and commitment. Narasimhan and Nair
(2005) argue that trust, information sharing as well as quality expectation between
partners positively impacting strategic alliance performance.
An example of corporate love affairs is McDonalds relationships with Coca-Cola.
When McDonalds CEO Mike Quinlan talks about this alliance his eyes light up. He
gushes, using a tone that says it all: They are our partner. Its an enormously important
strategic alliance Like any affair of the heart, the two companies loved getting away
together for a special weekend every now and then (Fortune, 1994).
Song and Liu (2012) underline the importance of understanding the nature of
relationship value and to model and measure the value of business relationships. There

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

are two basic issues about relationship value: what makes business relationships valuable
and how the value of business relationship can be assessed (Corsaro and Snehota, 2010).
Youve probably heard this in the workplace or in a marriage: I dont know what I want,
but Ill know it when I see it. That may work when buying art, but it is a recipe for
failure in achieving positive results in a business or marriage (Valant, 2008). Harmony
between the couple in marriage as well as between business partners with different
cultures and attitudes have direct impact of the quality of a such relationship.
Inter-organisational harmony has direct and indirect impact on the cooperation
atmosphere and the performance of the partners (Chow and Yau, 2010).
The relationship of the partners, as in a marriage, is a key to the success of the
arrangement. It may not be a sufficient factor itself, since the successful alliance needs
positive quantifiable results, but it is certainly a necessary condition. This romantic
business philosophy assumes that, love affairs or marriage relationships as well as
long-term business relationships are as ideally based on shared interest, mutual
trustworthiness, ethics, cooperation, and commitment to continue the relationship and to
keep the relationship arrangement productive, mutually beneficial and rewarding for all
parties.
Finally, Valant (2008) states that marriages, SA and mergers end up on the rocks 50%
of the time. Many management relationships, like husband and wife pairs, end up in such
irreversible trouble that one person simply has to go or let go often without a
severance package. One example of uncomfortable business marriage was the case of
Ford and Volkswagen alliance in the 1980s. Although there was a common goal to
expand their market into emerging Latin Americas. The alliance was a non-romantic and
uncomfortable marriage from the beginning because the partners were direct competitors
in most other markets and they were not willing to share their own design skills and
marketing strategies with each other. Although both were from advanced countries,
differences in cultural values and organisational practices were barriers against
developing a coherent strategy to challenge GM, who was a major competitor in the
market (Park and Ungson, 2001). Volvo and Renault in the 1980s and Volvo - Ford in the
1990s alliances were similar to the case of Ford Volkswagen which has ended with a
divorce or alliance collapse. One common factor was that there was a good motive, but
the outcomes were negative.

Strategic alliance and TRM

It is apparent from the literature review that despite the increasing importance of
international relations and business, insufficient attention is being paid to exploring and
theorising relationship management (RM) application on the SA in international contexts.
The application and use of RM and SA is of considerable interest to both industry
practitioners and academics. However, recent research has shown that the balance
between theoretical and practical knowledge concerning RM and SA is far from
equivalent. Total RM suggests new way of understanding the different international
business environments and, as a result, diverse ways of interacting with them. Both the
academic as well as the managerial world have much to gain by studying and
understanding these types of exchanges.

M. Zineldin et al.

According to Chandlers (1982) definition, strategy is the determination of the basic

long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and
the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out those goals. So, strategic alliances
are entered into by two or more partners to pursue long-term goals beneficial for all the
partners, and this characteristic differentiates SA from other forms of partnerships.
Although the prior strategic alliance studies have added to our knowledge of why SA
forms the enablers for initiation success and the achieved benefits (e.g., Zineldin, 2002;
Zineldin and Jonsson, 2000; Wheelen and Hungar, 2000; Lemoine and Dagns, 2003;
Ghoshal, 1987; Dyer and Ouchi, 1993; Geringer and Louis, 1991; Brucellaria, 1997),
most of these studies suffer from some weaknesses. Some have failed to use formative
indicators to differentiate between failed and successful alliances, instead opting for
either a descriptive case approach or respondent based reports of alliance existence. Most
studies tend to focus more on the determinants of their success rather than on the reasons
they fail. The main result of previous studies on SA and RM showed that there are
noticeable differences in the motives for entering into an alliance (Zineldin, 2005). The
studies also indicated that there is little support for the hypotheses that culture differences
act as a hindrance or reason for failure of SA or business relationships and point out to
the continued need for a holistic view of identifying formative indicators and examining
risks and problems associated with entering and maintaining successful strategic alliance.
TRM is a philosophy developed by Zineldin (1999) which emphasises the holistic view
which focuses on the internal and external factors impacting a relationship or a strategic
alliance (Arslan, 2008). A TRM is viewed as a strategy and a philosophy. It is total
because it considers and coordinates all todays and future internal and external
activities and resources involved in getting, keeping, enhancing and satisfying customers
and maintaining quality. It is a strategy because it emphasises maintaining high quality
products/services, internal and external relationships and trying to keep customers on a
long-term basis. It is a philosophy because it should be used to communicate the idea that
a major goal of management is to continuously improve the total quality and to plan and
build appropriate close and flexible long-term relationships with the parties who
contribute to the organisations success and long-term sustainable growth. It should also
guide the overall thinking of the organisation, its decision making and the execution of
predetermined plans. That is why Zineldin et al. (2012) also called this approach a total
strategic relationship management and philosophy. Arslan (2008) argues that the idea of
total in literature was first introduced by Zineldin (1999) because it considers and
coordinates all activities-including internal and external relationships, networks,
interactions and collaborations as well as all activities involved in getting, keeping,
enhancing and satisfying customers throughout quality.
Strategic alliance requires a holistic view and TRM approach to be able to cooperate
and coordinate different resources, activities and strategies (Zineldin, 2000). TRM
according to Solomon (2005) is an all-inclusive approach which is useful for developing
and promoting an effective philosophy of coordination of internal and external auditing
systems which needs to have a vision of what it wants to achieve through coordination
and may even consider its incorporation in the core goals or objectives of the
organisation. Under the paradigm of TRM, the firm focuses on all integrated activities
within the organisation, including internal and external relationships (Gupta et al., 2005).
The TRM raises several important issues regarding the various motives for establishing a
long term relationship or forming alliances with respect to competitive advantage and the

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

likelihood of a manufacturer entering into alliances with different partners. Alliance

motivation has an important role in alliance performance and outcomes.
Nationality of the partners influences the beliefs about and behaviours of the alliance
partners. However, the culture is also influenced by the complex inter-relationships
between relational constructs such as trust, commitment, cooperation, dependence,
communication, adaptations, financial and social exchanges (Bhaskaran and Gligorovska,
2009; Zineldin and Dodourova, 2005). According to Tayeb (1994), 70% of organisational
behaviour and human resource management literature make references to culture and
nearly 94 % of these studies conclude that culture influences organisational behaviour
including strategic alliance formation, acquisitions and mergers.
Zineldin and Dodourova (2005) and Hongbin (2012) have concluded that the cultural
difference has no significant impact on alliance performance. Das and Kumar (2010)
argue also that cultures of the partner firms, the context of cooperation, and the prior
experience of firms in managing alliances, may also play a role. They stated Managers
socialized in these cultures will be more tolerant of disruptions and the instinctive
reaction will not be to try to control the disruption. They will go with the flow, seeking to
adapt to the ongoing environment.
The quality of the alliance relationship is not only influenced by nationalities and
cultures but also by the experience, previous termination, alliance type, organisation size
and age. Size of the organisation influences the strength of the alliance relationship.
Larger companies tend to gain greater benefits from the relationship than smaller firms
(Terziovski and Samson, 2000). Based on organisational learning theory, length of
alliance, experience of having alliance with different partners type of alliance form affect
the success rates of SA (Anand and Khanna, 2000; Heimeriks and Duysters, 2007).
Rothaermel and Deeds (2006) found that alliance type and alliance experience moderate
the alliance relationships and product development. Even, the termination of the previous
alliance relationships refers to the capability and unique knowledge that firms deploy for
the formation, management, and termination of alliances (Lambe et al., 2002; Ziggers and
Tjemkes, 2010).

Relationship quality

Studies in marriage and love relationship show that there are four dimensions of
relationship quality: intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality. Many of these
studies concluded that relationship satisfaction was well predicted by these four scales,
with intimacy contributing most, and sexuality least, to overall relationship satisfaction
(Hassebrauck and Feh, 2002; Myers and Diener, 1995). The four scales correlated as
predicted with other constructs relevant to close relationships, such as commitment, trust
and other such soft behavioural and psychological variables (Hassebrauck and Feh,
2002). We assume that the intimacy, agreement and independence dimensions are
relevant for the SARs. This is an important undertaking given that the quality of a
marriage as well as of a strategic alliance intimate or long term relationship has manifold
consequences for not only institutional finance and economic aspects but also
psychological well-being of an individual.
Relationship quality has been suggested as a result of measuring the positive
relationship (Crosby et al., 1990; Fynes et al., 2005). Understanding the perceived

M. Zineldin et al.

relationship quality is critical to predict the firms future interactions with its partner as
well as the healthiness of the existing relationships (Choo et al., 2009). Based on TRM
approach, Zineldin (2000, 2006) developed a new measurement model which includes
five generic quality dimensions (5Qs) framework to measure the quality of both
marriage/romance or SAR. The 5Qs model is a comprehensive instrument that assures
reasonable relevance, validity and reliability, while being explicitly change oriented. The
interaction process between relationship partners is influenced by specific environmental
atmospheres where both operate (Ford et al., 1998; Zineldin, 2004; Robicheaux and
El-Ansary, 1975). The atmosphere can affect perceived relationship quality by improving
or by making it worse, which affects the overall negative or positive outcomes of the
strategic alliance.
Some key episodes or variables of the structure of relationship quality are adaptation,
communication, commitment, conflict, cooperation, expectation of continuity,
interdependence, bonds, opportunism, relationship stability, satisfaction, trust, and
willingness to invest in the relationship (Huntley, 2006; Moon, 2007; Zineldin, 2000).
The age, culture, motive and experiences of the partners influence the expecting outcome
of the relationship performance and total quality of strategic alliance relationship
(TQSAR). The same should take place in the business world according to Zineldin et al.
(2012).
Figure 1 illustrates the z5Qs model and its constructs where the TQSAR of
the partners overall satisfaction is a function of Q1Q5. The model is based on
the total relationship approach (TRM). The TQSAR = fn(Q1+ Q2 + Q3 + Q4 + Q5).
Moreover, there is a sequential relationship between the 5Qs, as shown in the following
figure.
Figure 1

Zineldins 5Q constructs model (see online version for colours)

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

4.1 Relations, correlations and significance between factors impacting the

TQSAR
Q1 Object technical quality (which measures the justification and main motivations of
entering into a marriage or SAR. The motivations can be one or all of the following
financial, technological, managerial and strategic. The positive aspects and
outcomes of construct of relationship factors should significantly outweigh the
negative ones.
Q2 Processes functional quality (how the partners established and enhanced the
relationship). It measures how well relationship activities are implemented.
Adaptation is important Q2 factor. Partner A could change its own product design to
cope with a production difficulty at its partner B (e.g., a supplier). Adaptation could
also include investment of tangible and intangible resources by both parties. This
investment ranges from the use of human resources to develop contacts with the
counterpart.
Q3 Infrastructure basic resources needed to perform the core activities of the
relationship. Commitment, keeping promises, integrity are some key Q3 variables.
Core competences, skills and knowledge are also critical factors.
Q4 Interaction communication and information exchange, financial and social
exchanges between the partners are critical factors. Bonds also arise between any
two interacting parties as they learn to deal with each other. The interaction process
that characterises relationships can be said to be productive for the parties involved
in the sense that they correct and develop their knowledge of the counterpart and
learn to exploit each other and the relationship better. Different bonds could be
classified as social, technical, timing, knowledge, planning, and legal/economic
bonds (Zineldin, 2000). Termination costs can also be a bond.
Q5 Atmosphere relationship and interaction process between parties are influenced by
specific environments where they operate. Frank, cooperative or unfriendly
atmosphere explains good or poor care. Consequently, atmosphere indicators should
be considered critically. Shared values and visions are positive atmosphere factors.
Opportunism is a negative variable. It can be defined as self-interest seeking with
guile (Williamson, 1985). Examples of opportunistic behaviour are such acts as
withholding or distorting information and shirking or failing to fulfil promises or
obligations (Zineldin, 2000). Satisfactory atmosphere can lead to that one partner
can make e to save the relationship from being ruined (divorce).

Methodology

5.1 Research design

Data was collected through a mail survey administered to senior executives of different
size manufacturers and service providers in China, Japan and Mauritius. The diversity of
countries, industries, sizes and ages of the organisation was designed to assure the
possibility of generalisation of the research results and outcomes.

10

M. Zineldin et al.

Following the literature review and questionnaire design, a pilot study was carried out
in companies such as Volvo and Scania in Russia, DHL, JCI Suita and Chamber of
commerce in Japan, White Sand Tours, Mauritius Telecoms, ICT companies in Mauritius
and Sika from China. Respondents were encouraged to identify unclear items, comment
on the importance of the research issues, if the respondents could/would complete the
questionnaire in the absence of a researcher, and suggest changes. No major problems
were presented, and after making the required modifications, the final draft of the
questionnaire was developed.

5.1.1 The sample

The snowball sampling approach has successfully been used to gain respondents.
According to snowball sampling, respondents are chosen from the professional and
friendship networks of existing members of the sample (Thompson and Collin, 2002).
The period of snowballing was four months (JuneSeptember 2012). The questionnaire
was designed as web-survey with a link to the survey platform or portal on line and as an
e-mail survey. The respondents were encouraged to login with the specific password to
conduct online reply or to return the answered survey to the researchers e-mail. By
beginning of September 2012 a total of 112 (N 112) full completed questionnaires were
received from respondents had SA with different suppliers, distributors and other supply
chain actors. The sample profile is presented in Table 1. Most of the respondents were
primarily male (61.6%). Almost 44% had previous failure or experience of strategic
alliance termination for different reasons.
Table 1

Sample profile

N 112

Frequency

Percent
(%)

Gender of the senior executive

Male

69

61.6

Female

43

38.4

Yes

49

43.8

No

63

56.2

Previous SA termination (divorce)

Length of the alliance, SA (marriage)

Long (over 15 years)

63

56.3

Medium (over 5 to 14)

24

21.4

Short (less than 5)

25

22.3

Large

55

49.1

Medium

21

18.8

Small

36

32.1

Old (over 20 years)

88

78.6

Middle age (between 519)

15

13.5

Size of the organisation

Age of the organisation

Mean

Std dev

1.38

.489

1.56

.498

1.66

.823

1.83

.899

1.29

.610

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?
Table 1

11

Sample profile (continued)

N 112

Frequency

Percent
(%)

Partners nationality (culture)

Native

64

57.2

European

25

22.5

USA

11

9.6

Others

12

10.7

Mean

Std dev

1.74

1.020

The majority of the existing SA (56.3%) were very stable with long term partnership over
15 years. 78.6% of the organisations were mature enough (over 20 years old) and 8% are
younger than five years old. 49% were large companies with over 500 employees and
32% are small with one to ten employees.

5.1.2 Scales
Scales consisting of multiple items were developed to measure each of the 5Qs construct.
Given our conceptualisation of SAR major economic factors such as cost, profits,
investment, market share and behavioural factors trust, commitment, flexibility,
satisfaction, ethical and unethical behaviours, power and dependency it was essential that
the quality measures of the strategic alliance relation (SAR) captured both the importance
of the relationship to respondents and their beliefs about working to maintain the
collaborative relationship and avoid or decrease the probabilities of the future failure. We
draw upon scales which had been used in human relations such as in marriage as well as
business relations marketing and management literature to further the process of
validation for established scales. Listening to each other, openness, honesty, trust, and so
on are scales for measuring the intimacy. They correspond to the intimacy dimension in
Sternbergs (1986) triangular theory of love. Features such as mutual goals, common
activities, harmony, and security are some of the agreement which is similar to the dyadic
consensus subscale from Spaniers (1976) Quality of Marriage. Integrity, freedom and
autonomy are some of the independence factors which are part of the relationship beliefs
identified by Fletcher and Kininmonth (1992). Other scales were also based on the
previous research such as perceived quality, business trust, commitment and satisfaction
(Dwyer and Oh, 1987; Moorman et al., 1992; Zineldin and Jonsson, 2000; Zineldin,
2006; Skarmeas and Robson, 2008). The selection of these dimensions is also based on
the suitability to the context of B2B markets. We have also developed some new, or
adjusted, scales to perfectly suit the present study and are able to conduct high quality
empirical research. All constructs were measured through multiple-item scales and a
five-point Likert-type response format.
The independent variables of this study are the 5Qs (Q1Q5) and the dependent
variables are alliance motivation (A2), previous experience and termination (A1), culture
and nationality (A5), alliance type, (A9), and alliance length (A10). The control variables
are the age and size of the organisation. Most of the 45 items and scales in the 5Qs
constructs were already statistically verified and tasted in different business relations in
different areas such as wood industry supplier-dealer long term relationship, strategic
alliance between Swedish and Russian automobile manufacturer. Some of these factors
were also tested to measure satisfaction in healthcare and educational sittings. The result

12

M. Zineldin et al.

of such surveys was already published in different journals. Scales were created to
represent the various constructs of interest based on prior work in the area. Majority of
the scales had been tested on previous occasions and had been proven to be reliable
(Akdag and Zineldin, 2010; Byrd, 2009; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Meyer and Allen,
1984; Zineldin, 2006; Zineldin and Vasicheva, 2011) with Cronbach alpha values
generally in excess of 0.85 and apparent simple structure as indicated from confirmatory
factor analysis. Some new items based on sociology and psychology studies on marriage
and family relationships are added. Some measurable quality scales of the 5Qs model are:
1

we often feel very satisfied in the cooperation with the partner

to succeed in this relationship, it is often necessary to have common goals and

policies.

our future profits are dependent on maintaining a good working relationship with this
partner

the partner spends lots of time to get to know our personnel and employees

this partner spends enough energy in our relationship

there is no reason for us to be suspicious to this partner

despite the busy lives and schedules, we make time to spend quality time together

this partner is willing to adjust its production process to us

the partner gives us opportunities to participate in goal setting for performance

10 the partner will support our activities

11 this relationship requires maximum effort and involvement
12 we are fully open and honest in the relationship with this partner.
Piskar and Faganel (2009) and Tu (2009) provided empirical evidences that the 5Qs
model and its scales emphasise that quality are used as the key aspect to survive and gain
a competitive advantage by establishing long-term relationships.

Reliability and validity

Validity and reliability tests were performed to ensure that the scales were valid and were
measuring what they were supposed to. It was also necessary to test the degree of internal
consistency, or degree of inter-correlation among several measures for the same
construct.
Cronbachs coefficient alpha was used to assess the degree of internal consistency of
within a particular scale. From a psychometric point of view, Alpha values of the 5Qs
subscales for trust, commitment, cooperation, shared values, etc., have been validated in
numerous studies, as well as in several different cultures, e.g., USA, Sweden, Turkey,
Egypt, Jordan and Kazakhstan. According to Churchill (1979) and Fornell and Larcker
(1981), 0.70 or higher are considered to be acceptable, with 0.60 being acceptable for
new scales. As shown in Table 2, all scales exceeded this threshold. Some descriptive
statistics such as mean and SD are also shown in Table 2.

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?
Table 2

13

Item statistics

N 112

Mean

SD

Cronbachs alpha

Q1

Object

32.75

2.62

.79

Q2

Process

31.48

3.64

.76

Q3

Infrastructure

29.14

2.79

.79

Q4

Interaction

32.13

3.72

.77

Q5

Atmosphere

TQSAR

33.52

4.80

.77

159.07

14.80

.88

Our 5Qs scales of the 45 sub-items had a good reliability score (Cronbach = 0.77).
Construct validity was tested through factor analysis by principal components for
respective scale. Factor analysis reduced 45 variables associated with the 5Qs model as
attributes to ten new, salient variables. The eigenvalues were all larger than one and the
majority of individual item loadings exceeded 0.5, with many loading in the around 0.70.
These ten components explain a total of 81.49% for the variance. The results indicate that
most of the scales used in the analysis will have good construct validity. The five highest
loading factors are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Q. type

Factor analysis
Load

Q type

Lowest 5

Load.

Q3:1

Trust of the partner

.777

Q3:5

Time to know our personnel

.311

Q2:5

Common performance
goal setting

.773

Q2.1

Flexibility and willingness to

adapt

.337

Q5:4

Frequently possibilities
discuss new

.772

Q4:6

Coordination routines of
administrative

.346

Q4:4

Open and honest

behaviour

.763

Q4:3

In advance information sharing

.348

Q5:1

Enough energy to sustain

SA

.756

Q5:8

Regularly check each other future

plans

.351

Highest 5

Analysis and results

The following control variables were used in the study: 5Qs independent variables of
object, (Q1) process (Q2), infrastructure (Q3), interaction (Q4) atmosphere (Q5) and
dependent variables: length of alliance (commitment level), nationality (culture) of the
partner organisation (native, European, USA, others), alliance type (11 types: such as
joint venture, join R&D, distribution, product development, full merge, etc.), alliance
motivation (A2) and if the organisation had previous termination of strategic alliance
(divorce), age of the organisation (A5: old, middle age or young), size of the organisation
(A3: large, medium or small). Table 4 shows the correlations between each of the
dependent and independent variables. Majority of the bivariate correlations are positive
and several of them are statistically significant. In particular, the correlations between the
independent variables are all positive.

Alliance type

Alliance length

Termination

A9

A10

A1

32.75

.129

.332**

.350**

.060

.021

.101

.134

.705**

.603**

.638**

.666**

33.52

.112

.408**

.124

.089

.076

.143

.004

.645**

.615**

.438**

29.14

.123

.128

.378**

.051

.308**

.137

.051

.702**

.642**

Q3

Q4

32.13

.036

.267**

.153

.021

.244**

.325**

.192*

.689**

Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

N 112

Mean

Org. age

P. nationality

A8

Org. size

A3

A5

Atmosphere

Interaction

Q4

Alliance motive

Infrastructure

Q3

A2

Process

Q2

Q5

Object

Q1

Q2

31.48

.127

.116

.264**

.144

.191*

.142

.032*

Q5

14.607

.062

.146

.050*

.045

.075

.038*

A2

1.83

.230**

.130

.133

.318**

.342**

A3

1.29

.224**

.309**

.080

.201*

A5

1.61

.127

020

.035

A8

5.21

.298**

.171

A9

1.66

.146

A10

1.65

A1

Table 4

Q1

14
M. Zineldin et al.

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations confidents

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

15

As can be seen, the control variable size (A3) of the organisation is positively related to
only one independent variable which is Q4 (interaction). It also positively related to the
age of the partner organisation but negatively related to the dependent variables the
nationality of the partner organisation and its previous experience of breaking or
termination relations. The other control variable, age of the organisation is positively
related to the independent variables Q3 and Q4 (infrastructure and interaction). Mature
company use to have good infrastructure and interaction strategies to assure and maintain
good quality of the relationship. The age is also negatively related to the nationality and
termination ability of the partner organisation. The motivation of strategic alliance
(A2: MOT) is positively related to the interaction (Q4) of the relationship. The quality of
object is positively related to both type and length of the alliance relationship. Q2 and Q4
are related to the length of the relationship. Q 3 and Q5 are related to the type of the
alliance. Although the dependent variables nationality (culture) was related to the control
variable age and size, it was not related to any of the independent variables. Previous
termination (divorce) of strategic alliance was related to only Q4 (INTER). One separate
regression was conducted for each of the other four dependent variables, Motivation
(MOT), alliance length (ALLNTH) alliance type (ALLTYP) and previous termination
(TERM).
Each regression model are discussed in the following sections. The collinearity
between several of the independent variables, and the high bivariate correlations between
the independent variables and some of the dependent variables, resulted in the fact that
several strong regression models could be developed. The models presented here, only
contain statistically significant variables, and explain high levels of variance in the
dependent variable.

7.1 Regression with alliance motivation (MOT) as dependent variable

Table 5 shows a resulting regression model with MOT as the dependent variable, and the
identified independent variables. The model only involves statistically significant
variables. The model explains 13% of the variance in strategic alliance motivation
(MOT). Beta coefficient shows that independent variable Q4 makes the strongest unique
contribution followed by Q5 to explaining the dependent variable MOT when the
variance explained by all other variables in the model is controlled for. Q1 was lower
(.32), indicating that it made less of a contribution. All Q1, Q4 and Q5 made a unique and
statistically significant contribution to the prediction of the strategic alliance motivation.
Table 5
Variables

Regression model for MOT (A2)

b

Q4 INTER

0.42**

.003

Q5 ATMOS

0.36**

.024

Q1 OBJ

0.32**

.031

R2

0.362a

0.131

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Interaction (INTER) is the most important variable in the model. It is not very surprising
that a quality of the relationship depends on the partners willingness and good
intention to maintain and develop the relationship. Thus, efforts and involvement to visit

16

M. Zineldin et al.

and to know each other better and deeper improve the quality of interaction. Social,
economic and knowledge exchange are also important for the interactions between
partners. We find it more interesting that atmosphere (ATMOS) which includes
making quality time to spend and having fun together is as important for the organisation
as in the marriage relationship. The quality of the OBJ (Q1) which is the main reason
for the cooperation was not making strong contribution as the INTER (Q4) and
ATMOS (Q5). These are significant variables in the model but seem to be a given
fact which means that if you do not provide good object there would not be any relation
at all. These findings verify previous research (Zineldin, 2006; Zineldin et al., 2012) and
further emphases the importance of the three variables to achieve a high quality
relationship.

7.2 Regression with ALLNTH (A10) as dependent variable

Table 6 shows the results of a regression with the length of the strategic alliance as
dependent variable. Length of the relationship is an indication of the relationship
stability, maturity and commitment. We used scale long term (over 15 years), medium
(over 514 years) and short (less than 5 years). Table 6 shows that three independent
variables Q5 (atmosphere), Q2 (Process) and again Q1 (Object) are strongly related to the
length of the relationship. INTER is not statistically significant in the model with
ALLNTH as dependent variable, but it is still positively correlated with ALNTH (see
bivariate correlation in Table 4).
Table 6
Variables

Regression model for ALLENTH

b

Q5 ATMOS

0.45**

.003

Q2 PROC

0.42**

.001

Q1 OBJ

0.33**

.031

R2

0.504a

0.219

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Although the three identified variables make up a very strong model for ALLNTH, the
other independent variables may also be important for high-trust relationships. These
findings verify previous research (Akdag and Zineldin, 2010; Byrd, 2009) and further
emphases the importance of the atmosphere and the process variables to achieve a high
quality SAR.

7.3 Regression with ALLTYP (A9) as dependent variable

Table 7 uses the mean value of ALLTYP as dependent variable. Table 7 shows the results
of a regression with the same independent variables as in table 5, but with ALLTYP as
dependent variable. The three models (Tables 5, 6 and 7) contain OBJ as important
common underlying variables. INTER (Q4) is not statistically significant in the model
with ALLTYP as dependent variable.

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?
Table 7

17

Regression model for ALLTYP

Variables

Q3 INFRA

0.34**

.013

Q1 OBJ

0.33**

.021

R2

0.448

0.163

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

It is very logical that when selecting a soul mate or partners for stable relationship, one is
more interested in the infrastructure of the expecting partners which reflects the potential
sustainability of win-win relationship. Human and capital resources, competences and
knowledge, honest behaviour, integrity are some important factors related to the
atmosphere. Other variables are also important and significant but not in during the phase
of partner selection.

7.4 Regression with TERM as dependent variable

The last regression model (Table 8) uses the previous termination as an indication of the
failure of the previous strategic alliance or divorce between the partners. It shows that the
most significant factor for the divorce is the interaction (INTER). The significance is
weak and the model explains only 7% of the variance in TERM.
Table 8
Variables
Q3 INTER

Regression model for TERM

b
0.34**

R2

0.264

0.070

.020

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

While other independents variables Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q5 are not statistically significant in
the model with TERM as dependent variable, the control variable such as age of the
organisation (A3), size of the organisation (A5) as well as the other dependent variables
such as nationality (A8) of the partner and the type of the relationship (A9) were
correlated to TERM (see bivariate correlation in Table 4).

Discussion and conclusions

In order to examine the effects of the interaction between a set of variables and the
achievement of high strategic relationship quality as well as to avoid or eliminate the
probability of relationship failures, correlation analysis, factor analysis and regression
analysis were used to identify key-variables. The results indicate that the first and most
important quality construct of strategic relationships was partners infrastructure (Q5).
This finding was fully expected and is consistent with those of, for example, Akdag and
Zineldin (2010) and Zineldin (2006). Another key point, was that, as in a successful
marriage relationship, the behavioural item scales such as devoting time and energy to
sustain the relationship (Q5), frequently discuss new possibilities (Q5), Open and honest
behaviour (Q4) were more important than the economical or juridical variables such as

18

M. Zineldin et al.

profits, investment or agreements to achieve long term and high quality strategic
relationship. Reasons for potential relationship failures are also found in Q5 (ATMOS)
and Q4 (INTER). Lack of coordination of administration routines, lack of providing each
other with accurate information as well as lack of checking each others future plans are
most critical factors for failure of the strategic relationship. In this sense, marriage and
business are alike. These factors are reflecting shared values and or opportunistic
behaviour. Dwyer and Oh (1987) also, focused on the importance of shared values and no
opportunistic behaviour to achieve high trust and commitment relationship. These
findings are in-sync with the situation in the studied strategic alliance types (ALLTYP),
are characterised by informal contacts, rather than formal and automated transactions. A
situation where a partner adapts to the needs of the other partner was also identified as
quite important for achieving high TQSAR.
As shown in Figure 1, the fact that there are many correlations and statistically
significant positive relationships between most independent variables and the dependents
variables makes it difficult to conclude exactly what mix of independent variables that
lead to high TQSAR. It is obvious, however, that they are important for avoiding the
termination (divorce) and for creating trust and commitment.
Adaptations and flexibility and common goal settings were identified as the most
important PROC (Q2) variables for ALLNTH. But it was not included in the other
models. It makes sense that it needs long time to build high trust and commitment to
justify the costs and efforts of the adjustments of processes to the needs of the other
partner. Most interesting and new finding is that there is no any correlation or statically
significance between the nationality of the partner which is reflecting the culture factors
(A8) and any of the independent variables. That explains why Chinese and Japanese
companies have more successful relationships all over the world. From the data collected,
it was not possible to draw this conclusion in the context of Mauritius. This could be
explained because Mauritius has not been involved in SA in foreign countries to the same
extent as Japan and China. Our interviews showed that different culture should not a
barrier for achieving long term relationship. Different cultures provide diversified
opportunities. Cultures stress the importance of harmony in relationships as well as in
relation to the external environment, which assume that people are basically good and
value relationships (Das and Kumar, 2010). One more interesting finding is that the
termination of strategic alliance (divorce) is statistically significant with only INTER
variables. That is also a logical finding. As in marriage, a cooperative business
relationship grows over time as trust and commitment between business partners develop
(Zafirovski, 2005; Zineldin, 2002).
The 5Qs model includes different trust and commitment scales. Trust and
commitment building process is a social exchange. Social exchange relations evolve in a
slow process, starting with minor transactions in which little trust is required because
little risk is involved and in which both partners can prove their trustworthiness, enabling
them to expand their relations and engage in major transactions (Zineldin, 2000; Blau,
1964).

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

19

Development and validation of measures

In addition to the substantial findings, this paper contributes to the development and
validation of several empirical measures. We believe that our contribution towards the
validation of scales is important because it helps build a common framework for
conducting research and disseminating results. Parts of the developed and used measures
had previously been used in other settings, in other industries and in other countries. Our
research shows that the measures should be as general to be used in different contexts.
Although we designed the study to provide reliable and valid measures, it is important
to realise that all studies are limited to some extent in terms of generalisability. The
results of this study can be replicated using larger sample sizes in order to draw any
conclusion.

10 Future research
Our study focused on TQSAR in general and did not focus on how successful or
unsuccessful relationships were or in which sector or country the relationship was better
or worse. The underlying variables that make a relationship successful are likely to be
more or less important in various contexts such as well-developed or less developed
partnership. Empirical research showed that the relationships between underlying
variables and various contexts would improve the understanding of how to create sustain
and/or avoid failures of relationships in various sectors, countries and environments.

Acknowledgements
The correspondent author is grateful for the financial support provided by Linnaeus
University and valuable comments received from Mark Slade President of DHL in Tokyo
and Steve Mushero, CEO of China NetCloud in Shanghai during the personal interviews.

References
Akdag, H. and Zineldin, M. (2010) Quality of health care and patient satisfaction: an exploratory
investigation of the 5Qs model at Turkey, Clinical Governance: An International Journal,
Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.92101.
Anand, B.N. and Khanna, T. (2000) Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.295315.
Arslan, A. (2008) Boosting total relationship marketing, Electronic Journal of Social Science,
Summer, Vol. 7, No. 25, pp.139156.
Bhaskaran, S. and Gligorovska, E. (2009) Influence of national culture on trans-national alliance
relationships, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp.4461.

20

M. Zineldin et al.

Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.
Brucellaria, M. (1997) Strategic alliances spell success, Management Accounting, Vol. 77, No. 7,
p.16.
Byrd, L. (2009) An Examination of Information Technology and It Perceived Quality Issues in
Single System Hospitals in the United States, Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University,
Alabama USA, 18 December.
Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1993) The role of culture compatibility in successful
organizational marriage, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.5770.
Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1995) Organizational marriage: hard versus soft issues?,
Personnel Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.3242.
Chandler, A.D. (1982) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise,
MIT Press, Cambridge.
Choo, H.J., Jung, J-W. and Chung, I.H. (2009) Buyer-supplier relationships in Dongdaemun
fashion market: relationship quality model, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.481500.
Chow, R.P.M. and Yau, O.H.M. (2010) Harmony and cooperation: their effects on IJV
performance in China, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17,
No. 3, pp.312326.
Churchill, G.A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.6473.
Corsaro, D. and Snehota, I. (2010) Searching for relationship value in business markets: are we
missing something?, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp.986995.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990) Relationship quality in service selling: an
integrative influence perspectives, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp.6881.
Das, T.K. and Kumar, R. (2010) Inter partner sense making in strategic alliances: managing
cultural differences and internal tensions, Management Decision, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.1736.
Dwyer, F.R. and Oh, P.H. (1987) Output sector munificence effects on the internal political
economy of marketing channels, Journal of Marketing, November, Vol. 24, No. 4, p.347.
Dyer, J.H. and Ouchi, W.G. (1993) Japanese-style partnerships: giving companies a competitive
edge, Sloan Management Review, Fall, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.5163.
Fletcher, G.J.O. and Kininmonth, L. (1992) Measuring relationship beliefs: an individual
difference scale, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 26, pp.371397.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.E., Hkansson, H., Lundgren, A., Snehota, I., Turnbull, P. and Wilson, D.
(1998) Managing Business Relationships, Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.3950.
Fortune (1994) Things go better with Coke just ask McDonalds, 17 October.
Fynes, B., Voss, C. and de Burca, S. (2005) The impact of supply chain relationship quality
performance, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp.339354.
Geringer, M.J. and Louis, H. (1991) Control and performance of international joint ventures,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.249264.
Ghoshal, S. (1987) Global strategy: an organizing framework, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.425440.
Gupta, A., McDaniel, J.C. and Herath, S.K. (2005) Quality management in service firms:
sustaining structures of total quality service, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15, No. 4,
pp.389402.
Hamel, G. (1991) Competition for competence and inter partner learning within international
strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, Summer, Vol. 12, pp.83103.
Hassebrauck, M. and Feh, B. (2002) Dimensions of relationship quality, Personal Relationships,
Vol. 9, pp.253270.

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

21

Haubrich, J.G. (1989) Financial intermediation delegated monitoring and long-term

relationships, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.920.
Heimeriks, K.H. and Duysters, G.M. (2007) Alliance capability as a mediator between experience
and alliance performance: an empirical investigation into the alliance capability development
process, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.2549.
Hongbin, D. (2012) Impact of cultural difference and communication on strategic alliance
performance [online] http://www.seiofbluemountain.com/upload/product/200911/
2009scyxhy09a2.pdf (accessed 15 December 2013).
Huntley, J.K. (2006) Conceptualization and measurement of relationship quality: linking
relationship quality to actual sale and recommendation intention, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.703714.
Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E. and Hunt, S.D. (2002) Alliance competence, resources, and alliance
success: conceptualization, measurement, and initial test, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.141158.
Lemoine, W. and Dagns, L. (2003) Globalisation strategies and business organisation of a
network of logistics service providers, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.209228.
May, D.E. and Tate, G.J. (2011) Exploring economic and social-psychological factors in
explaining farmers willingness to participate in cooperative alliances, International Journal
of Strategic Business Alliances, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.329346.
Mellat-Parast, M. and Digman, L.A. (2008) Learning: the interface of quality management
and strategic alliances, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 114, No. 2,
pp.820829.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984) Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 3,
pp.372378.
Moon, H-K. (2007) The Hierarchical Structure of Multi-Loyal Relations and Their Relationship
Quality of Fashion Consumers, Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992) Relationships between providers and users
of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organisations, Journal of
Marketing Research, August, Vol. 24, pp.314328.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp.2038.
Myers, D.G. and Diener, E. (1995) Who is happy?, Psychological Science, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp.1019.
Narasimhan, R. and Nair, A. (2005) The antecedent role of quality, information sharing and supply
chain proximity on strategic alliance formation and performance, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp.301313.
Paavo, R. and Hallikas, J. (2011) Network position of a firm and the tendency to collaborate with
competitors a structural embeddedness perspective, International Journal of Strategic
Business Alliances, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.307328.
Park, S.H. and Ungson, G.R. (2001) Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity: a conceptual
framework of alliance failure, Organization Science, JanuaryFebruary, Vol. 12, No. 1,
pp.3753.
Piskar, F. and Faganel, A. (2009).A successful CRM implementation project in a service
company, Journal Organizacija, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.199208.
Porter, M. (1987) From competitive advantage to corporate strategy, Harvard Bus. Rev., Vol. 65,
No. 3, pp.4359.
Prajogo, D., Chowdhury, M., Yeung, A.C.L. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2012) The relationship between
supplier management and firms operational performance: a multidimensional perspective,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp.123130.

22

M. Zineldin et al.

Robicheaux, R.A. and El-Ansary, A.I. (1975) A general model for understanding channel member
behavior, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 52, No. 12, pp.1330.
Rothaermel, F.T. and Deeds, D.L (2006) Alliance experience and alliance management capability
in high-technology ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.429460.
Sambasivana, M., Phaikc, L.S., Mohamed, Z. and Leong, Y.C. (2012) Factors influencing strategic
alliance outcomes in a manufacturing supply chain: role of alliance motives, interdependence,
asset specificity and relational capital, International Journal of Production Economics
[online] http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lnu.se/science/article/pii/S0925527312003647
#FCANote (accessed 30 August 2012).
Skarmeas, D. and Robson, M.J. (2008) Determinants of relationship quality in importer-exporter
relationships, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.171184.
Solomon, S. (2005) What is the Role of the Internal Audit Function in Establishing and Ensuring
Effective Coordination among the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, Executive
Management, the Internal Auditors, and the External Auditors?, University of Central
England Business School Audit Management and Consultancy Department, Birmingham, UK,
The all research foundation and the institute of internal auditors [online]
http://www.theiia.org/research/submit-aproposal/ scholarships-and-grants/
esther-r-sawyer-recipients/ (accessed 2 September 2012).
Song, Y.S.Q. and Liu, Q. (2012) Impact of business relationship functions on relationship quality
and buyers performance, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp.286298.
Spanier, G.B. (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.1528.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986) A triangular theory of love, Psychological Review, Vol. 93, pp.119135.
Tayeb, M. (1994) Organisations and national culture: methodology considered, Organisation
Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.429446.
Terziovski, T. and Samson, D. (2000) The effect of company size on the relationship between
TQM strategy and organisational performance, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 2,
pp.144149.
Thompson, S.K. and Collins, L.M. (2002) Adaptive sampling in research on risk related
behaviors, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol. 68, pp.5767.
Tu, K-H. (2009) The Effects of the Healthcare Quality on Patient Satisfaction: In Terms of
Rehabilitation Services, Master thesis at National Sun yet-sen University, China.
Valant, L.B. (2008) Why do both marriages and business mergers have a 50% failure rate?, The
CPA Online Journal, Vol. 78, No. 8, pp.1515 [online] http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/
2008/808/perspectives/p15.htm.
Wheelen, T.L. and Hungar, D.J. (2000) Strategic Management and Business Policy, 7th ed.,
Vols. 125134, p.314, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Williamson, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, The Free Press, New York.
World Economic Forum (2013) [online] http://www.weforum.org/ (accessed 12 November 2013).
Zafirovski, M. (2005) The influence of sociology on economics, Journal of Classical Sociology,
Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.123156.
Ziggers, G.W. and Tjemkes, B. (2010) Dynamics in inter-firm collaboration: the impact of alliance
capabilities on performance, Int. J. Food System Dynamic, Vol. 2, pp.151166.
Zineldin, A.H. and Vasicheva, V. (2011) Measuring, evaluating and improving hospital quality
parameters/dimensions an integrated healthcare quality approach, International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp.654662.
Zineldin, M. (1998) Towards an ecological collaborative relationship management, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, Nos. 11/12, pp.11381164.
Zineldin, M. (1999) Exploring the common ground of total relationship management (TRM) and
total quality management (TQM), Management Decision, Vol. 37, No. 9, pp.719730.

Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50% failure rate?

23

Zineldin, M. (2000) TRM, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.

Zineldin, M. (2002) Developing and managing a romantic business relationship: life cycle and
strategies, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp.546558.
Zineldin, M. (2004) Co-opetition: the organisation of the future, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp.780790.
Zineldin, M. (2005) Quality and customer relationship management (CRM), The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.329344.
Zineldin, M. (2006) The quality of healthcare and patient satisfaction: an exploratory investigation
of the 5Qs model at some Egyptian and Jordanian medical clinics, International Journal of
Healthcare Quality Assurance, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.6092.
Zineldin, M. and Bredenlw, T. (2003) Strategic alliance: synergies and challenges: a case of
strategic outsourcing relationship SOUR, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp.449464.
Zineldin, M. and Dodourova, M. (2005) Motivation, achievements and failure of strategic
alliances: the case of Swedish auto-manufacturers in Russia, European Business Review,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.460470.
Zineldin, M. and Jonsson, P. (2000) An examination of the main factors affecting
trust/commitment in supplier-dealer relationships: an empirical study of Swedish wood
industry, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.245265.
Zineldin, M., Bill, F., Vasicheva, V., Philipson, S. and Sandell, M. (2012) Relationship
Management for the Future, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.