Can conflict be a desirable step in trust-building within international strategic alliances? A systematic literature review and typology

Abstract

In the context of international alliance formation and stability, conflicts are traditionally represented as impediments, to be avoided or at least minimised. Motivated by earlier research and Positive Organisational Scholarship, we problematise the literature on conflicts and challenge such assumptions, coming up with a new research question: ‘How might conflicts be managed to build trust between international partners and ultimately support international strategic alliance formation and stability?’ We create a typology linking constructive conflict management procedures and trust. A better understanding of calculative trust, cognitive trust, and the progression from calculative to cognitive trust can facilitate the achievement of this goal. Well-managed conflicts can enhance trust-building between partners (prospective or current), supporting over time alliance formation and stability. Conflict can be changed from accustomed negative perceptions to a force for good, following a problematisation approach. In our typology, we explore the link of each procedure with calculative trust, cognitive trust, and the transition between calculative and cognitive trust. We create three meta-categories for these nine procedures and select examples from the literature that are connected to four established theoretical frameworks in the international strategic alliances area, i.e. transaction cost, institutional perspective, resource-based view, and organisational learning.