By Dr Laura Salciuviene, Assistant Professor in Strategy and International Business, Birmingham Business School and Dr Claudio De Mattos, University of Huddersfield
Conflict is often seen as a major obstacle in organisations, particularly in international strategic alliances. Traditionally, research has emphasised conflict avoidance, arguing that disagreements disrupt the pursuit of common goals. In our newest paper, published in the Journal of International Management, we ask what if conflict could actually be beneficial for long-term collaboration?
By challenging conventional wisdom, we explore how conflict, when effectively managed, can enhance stability and cooperation in business alliances.
Why Do Conflicts Arise in Strategic Alliances?
Organisations form alliances to pool resources and navigate an uncertain business environment. However, conflicts can emerge due to various factors, such as opportunism, internal politics, unmet expectations and cultural differences. Opportunism may occur when one party acts in its own interest at the expense of the alliance partner. Power struggles may arise and create friction disrupting the decision-making process. When expectations from either partner are not met due to differences in commitment, resource contributions or strategic goals, an atmosphere of misunderstanding may appear. Finally, different perceptions of fairness and approaches to conflict resolution may be caused by cultural differences.
Mainstream business theories often assume that conflict weakens alliances. For example:
- Transaction-cost economics suggests that conflict increases costs by requiring additional control mechanisms;
- Organisational learning theory argues that conflict hinders effective knowledge sharing;
- Institutional theory highlights how cultural differences create barriers to cooperation;
- The resource-based view warns that conflicts over resources can reduce a firm’s competitive advantage. While these concerns are valid, they overlook the potential benefits of well-managed conflict. Instead of dismissing conflict as detrimental, organisations should develop strategies to harness its constructive potential.
Given these complexities, it is no surprise that many scholars have advocated for conflict avoidance. But is avoiding conflict truly the best strategy?
The Case for Embracing Conflict
Rather than treating conflict as inherently negative, a fresh perspective suggests that it can be a catalyst for growth. This idea aligns with research on constructive conflict and positive organisational scholarship, which emphasise the value of open discussions and diverse viewpoints. For example, constructive controversy—where opposing perspectives are openly debated for mutual benefit—can help partners refine strategies, address hidden issues, and build deeper trust. Instead of suppressing disagreements, alliances can use structured dialogue to clarify expectations and foster stronger relationships.
How Can Conflict Support Long-Term Collaboration?
To transform conflict into a force for good, organisations must focus on effective conflict management, rather than avoidance. Our research identifies three key approaches:
- Building a Positive Atmosphere: creating a culture of trust and transparency allows partners to express concerns without fear of retaliation.
- Persuasion and Perspective-Shifting: encouraging open dialogue and negotiation helps parties understand each other’s viewpoints and find common ground.
- Adjusting Internal Attitudes: sometimes, the best way to resolve conflict is for each party to reassess its own stance and expectations.
These approaches tie into two fundamental types of trust: calculative trust and cognitive trust.
Calculative trust is based on a logical assessment of risks and benefits, where individuals weigh the potential outcomes and make decisions accordingly. This type of trust is often seen in initial stages of relationships or alliances, where parties rely on clear, measurable factors to build trust in each other.
On the other hand, cognitive trust is built on deeper relational understanding. It develops over time as individuals gain more insight into each other’s behaviours and intentions. Cognitive trust is characterised by a sense of mutual respect and empathy, where parties feel confident in each other’s reliability and integrity beyond mere calculations.
Strong alliances leverage both types of trust to navigate disagreements and maintain long-term stability. Understanding the transition from calculative trust towards cognitive trust is crucial for effective conflict management. As parties move from a purely logical assessment to a deeper relational understanding, they become better equipped to handle disagreements in a way that preserves and strengthens the alliance. This transition fosters a collaborative environment where conflicts are seen as opportunities for growth and improvement rather than threats to the relationship.
Moreover, understanding the transition from calculative trust towards cognitive trust should also bring insights supportive of the benefits of managing conflicts well. This approach not only supports the immediate resolution of disagreements but also contributes to the long-term health and stability of the inter-organisational relationship, ensuring that all parties can work together effectively.
Conclusion: A New Perspective on Conflict in Alliances
The idea that conflict is inherently harmful is outdated. By shifting from a mindset of avoidance to one of management, organisations can turn disagreements into opportunities for deeper collaboration, innovation, and resilience.
Strategic alliances will always face challenges, but those that embrace conflict as a tool for growth and problem-solving are more likely to achieve long-term success. The key lies in trust-building, open communication, and a willingness to adapt—qualities that define truly successful partnerships.
So, the next time conflict arises in an alliance, don’t just try to eliminate it—ask how it can be used to build a stronger, more sustainable inter-organisational partnership.
- Find out more about Dr Laura Salciuviene
- Back to Social Sciences Birmingham
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Birmingham.