Role Stress and Effectiveness in Horizontal Alliances

Abstract

Horizontal arrangements are increasingly deployed in organizational networks, yet research has rarely examined the effectiveness of these alliances. The coalition of disparate corporate cultures yields appreciable levels of role stress for people in boundary-spanning positions. Dedicated assets and communication modality are factors that influence the level of role ambiguity and conflict. The authors implicate these facets of role stress as antecedents to four forms of effectiveness drawn from the competing values framework. The authors present alternative perspectives that examine the relationship between stress and performance. The received view frames role stressors as linear, negative antecedents to organizational outcomes. The authors contrast this perspective with theories that espouse triphasic, parabolic, and interactive influences of stressors on organizational outcomes. Data gathered with 218 managers of dual-branded retail oil outlets indicate that the relevance of these alternative perspectives is mitigated by the form of effectiveness pursued by the organization. The results support a linear relationship between role conflict and bargaining efforts, yet they also offer evidence of nonlinear influences of role ambiguity on contributions to sales, customer satisfaction, and competence. The study concludes with a discussion of relevance of the findings to the management of horizontal alliances and to interorganizational theory.