posted 06-15-2001 11:53
Posted by admin(RW)
From Leverage Points Issue 13FROM THE FIELD
Failed Alliances Linked to Bad Relationships
Today's corporations are increasingly entering into strategic alliances to achieve their goals. But although these joint ventures start out with high expectations, about 75 percent of them fail. Last fall, for example, negotiations between AT&T and British Telecom to connect their business-service units deteriorated several weeks after they began. Why do so many efforts to partner fail?
According to Vantage Partners LLC of Cambridge, MA, and others, most partnerships fall apart because companies neglect the corporate relationship issues that typically emerge as an alliance is being formed. Vantage, founded by several members of the Harvard Negotiation Project, just released its three-year study of 150 business alliances (http://www.cmi-vantage.com/alliance). One key finding reveals that the partners' excitement at capitalizing on their synergies often masks simmering conflicts around differences in skills and values. So when the deal is done and trust and respect issues surface, the alliance disintegrates. Contentious negotiations during an alliance's formation can also adversely affect the relationship, as does today's complex business environment in which companies aligned in one arena often find themselves competing in another.
How can prospective partners avoid these pitfalls? The Vantage study offers 10 best practices for businesses to successfully manage and maximize the value of their partnerships. These practices focus on building relationship capabilities through steps such as establishing common ground rules for working together, putting skilled managers in charge of managing the alliance, and training employees in conflict resolution and handling difficult conversations. By investing in nurturing intercompany relationships, companies should reap the benefits of more successful and productive partnerships.
Source: Jeffrey Krasner, "Alliances Usually Fail, Study Says," The Boston Globe, Thursday, May 3, 2001
[This message has been edited by RodWilliams (edited 06-19-2001).]