The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels

This article explores the nature of the paradox inherent in coopetition; that is, the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition between firms, and emanating tensions that develop at individual, organizational, and inter-organizational levels. We dissect the anatomy of the coopetition paradox to discover how it materializes by creating an external boundary (i.e., via unifying forces) and internal boundaries (i.e., via divergent forces). After explaining the coopetition paradox, we distinguish tension from paradox and submit that tension comprises both positive and negative emotions simultaneously, also known as emotional ambivalence. Finally, we recognize that emotional ambivalence in coopetition prevails at different levels, and vary in its level of intensity and persistency in relation to different contexts. We employ illustrative cases to ground our propositions empirically. This article provides understanding on concepts, expects to incite fruitful dialogue, and fuels further studies on inter-firm paradoxes.     

Managing tension in coopetition through mutual dependence and asymmetries: A longitudinal study of a Norwegian R&D alliance

Strategic alliances between competitors (coopetition) is perceived to be full of tensions that needs to be managed. This study explore the evolution of a Norwegian coopetition alliance, through how firms handle tensions over time. The study finds that the firms experience a mutual dependence towards one another and that this dependence evolves over time. In the early phases of a coopetition alliance firms handle tension by relying on a structural dependence with their partners whereas firms move towards a more harmonious relationship with their partners by building a psychological dependence through trust and generosity. Further, the results indicate these dependencies might reduce the possible tensions related to asymmetries in size and knowledge between firms.     

Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe

Prior research highlighted the prevalence of coopetition as a strategy for innovation in high-tech industries for several reasons but the link between forms of coopetition and innovation is still understudied. In order to fill this gap in the literature, this study attempts to answer the following question: which form of coopetition favors which type of innovation? The results of an embedded case study approach of five Celtic-Plus projects (European Eureka Program) in the wireless telecommunication sector show that two forms of coopetition exist: multiple and dyadic. While multiple coopetition is successfully pursued for radical innovation, dyadic coopetition is more suitable for incremental innovation. Different innovation objectives lead to different levels of value creation/appropriation tensions between coopetitors. In order for competitors to pursue radical or incremental innovation successfully, different levels of social capital related to different choices of partners are needed. The role of social capital levels as a moderating factor between value creation/appropriation tensions and innovation type is discussed in detail. The study proposes a conceptual model that links coopetition strategy motives to the types of coopetition and their results in terms of radical or incremental innovation. Finally, a framework that helps firms to balance between multiple/dyadic–vertical/horizontal collaboration according to the levels of value creation/appropriation tensions and social capital is proposed.     

Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: Singular or plural governance?

This study researches how firms can improve their product innovation in coopetition alliances through alliance governance. Our survey-based study of 372 vertical alliances in the medical device industry contributes to a clarification of prior studies' contrasting findings on product innovation when coopetition is present in alliances. Our results show that the singular use of relational governance improves product innovativeness in vertical alliances that experience growing levels of coopetition. In contrast, the singular use of transactional governance reduces product innovativeness with growing coopetition. When firms apply both relational and transactional governance as plural governance, vertical coopetition alliances get access to new ways to improve their product innovativeness.     

The architecture of coopetition: Strategic intent,ambidextrous managers,and knowledge sharing

The study investigates the significance of strategic intent, manager's ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing routines for firms in their quest to pursue coopetition. We utilize the resource-based view and the dynamic capabilities theory to ground our hypotheses. We test the hypotheses using the data collected from 313 firms that engage in coopetition relationships through an online survey. The findings forward knowledge sharing and ambidextrous managers as intervening variables, in that when complemented with knowledge sharing, a firm's strategic intent could better guide the firm's managers to pursue coopetition successfully. Findings further advocate that knowledge sharing complements to enable the relationship between a firm's strategic intent and its ambidextrous managers, as well as the relationship between strategic intent and coopetition. Furthermore, results also indicate that ambidextrous managers, with a skillset of a combination of exploration and exploitation, are positively associated to coopetition. Overall, the findings make important theoretical as well as empirical contributions to the coopetition and strategic alliance literature.     

Value-creation-capture-equilibrium in new product development alliances: A matter of coopetition,expert power,and alliance importance

Alliances are often thought to be longer lasting and lead to better results when they are perceived as equal and fair in terms of how efforts and rewards are distributed. This study conceptualizes the value-creation-capture-equilibrium (VCCE) as the relative inputs and efforts made by alliance partners to create and capture innovation-related value. We seek to better understand the determinants of the VCCE in dyadic new product development (NPD) alliances. We focus on three factors from a focal firm's perspective: (1) the coopetition intensity with the alliance partner (i.e. simultaneous competition and collaboration), (2) the expert power of the alliance partner, and (3) the relative importance of the particular NPD alliance. We hypothesize that coopetition intensity stabilizes the VCCE. Furthermore, we assume that the partner's expert power and the focal firm's relative alliance importance negatively moderate the relationship between coopetition intensity and the VCCE. Based on a dataset of N = 471 NPD alliances of high-tech firms, we find partial support for our hypotheses and contribute towards a better understanding of the factors influencing the VCCE in NPD alliances.     

Blind date? Intermediaries as matchmakers on the way to start-up—industry coopetition

This article explores intermediaries as a missing link in initiating coopetition between established industry firms and start-ups. Research establishes that partner search and compatibility are critical success factors from the very beginning of coopetition. As many relationships fail owing to the absence of partner fit, knowledge on facing the challenge at this early stage is highly relevant. By applying a network perspective, we propose that intermediaries can bridge partners and hence overcome this initial hurdle. Based on a case study of an intermediary high-tech incubator, we examine the triad of start-ups, incubator, and established industry firms. Findings show how the involvement of an intermediary can facilitate the initiation of coopetition. The key contribution is an inductive model illustrating the interaction of the dimensions of incubator-initiated start-up–industry coopetition. We highlight an incubator's quality filter function evolving from bridging matchmaker and initial broker and demonstrate the added value to the initial partner search and compatibility. We enrich coopetition with network theory and provide implications on how incubators can provide an important foundation for establishing coopetition between start-ups and industry firms.     

Managing tensions related to information in coopetition

This study seeks to provide insights into the management of tensions related to information in coopetition. The literature on coopetition management recommends a separation principle, an integration principle or a combination of both. Focusing on tensions related to information in coopetition at the project level, we consider which principle is most appropriate. We theoretically discuss the control mechanisms used to address information criticality and information appropriability. In addition, we conduct an in-depth case study of a space project involving two competitors, Astrium and Thales Alenia Space. First, we describe the tensions related to information that arose in the context of this coopetitive project. In particular, financial and technical information presented dilemmas. Second, we explain how the coopetitors used formal control mechanisms to separate critical information from non-critical information. Specifically, information that was critical to the project's success was shared through a common information system specially designed for the project, whereas non-critical information was withheld from the partner. Third, because formal control mechanisms were insufficient to address critical information that was also appropriable, we show how project managers implemented informal control mechanisms. For example, project managers transformed appropriable information into non-appropriable information by aggregating data and withholding details such as calculation methods and cost structures. Our findings suggest that the management of tensions related to information in coopetitive projects requires a combination of formal control mechanisms (to manage information criticality) and informal control mechanisms (to manage information appropriability).     

A paradox within the paradox of openness: The knowledge leveraging conundrum in open innovation

Firms’ innovative capabilities and performance increasingly rely on successful search and integration of internal and external knowledge. To this end, firms engage in various open innovation relationships, aiming to create and capture value in multi-actor contexts. This can give rise to a “paradox of openness” due to the contradictory role of knowledge as a key resource that creates value when shared, but also as a source of appropriability challenges. We explore the concept of a “paradox within a paradox;” the knowledge-leveraging paradox embedded within the paradox of openness. We integrate a knowledge-based view with paradox theory and develop a conceptual model to pinpoint core knowledge-related transferability and exposure tensions. We then show how these tensions are inversely moderated by innovation-related knowledge ambiguity. This ambiguity amplifies transferability tensions by making the knowledge more difficult to transfer and integrate across organizational boundaries, while relieving exposure tensions for the same reasons. We discuss potential solutions for resolving these core knowledge-related tensions by identifying separation and restructuring mechanisms that can facilitate simultaneous knowledge transfer and alleviate exposure hazards.     

Knowledge management and coopetition: How do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge?

Coopetitors need to manage interorganizational knowledge flows to balance cooperative knowledge sharing and competitive knowledge protection. The question of how to balance these has received little research attention, with most studies analyzing knowledge sharing or protection separately. To address this gap, we develop a theoretical framework on coopetitive knowledge sharing and knowledge protection practices. This framework is based on a literature review of coopetitive interorganizational knowledge management. To complement and refine this initial framework, we build on insights from a qualitative study that gathered data from 11 semistructured interviews with key informants of Latin American firms. We show that a balance between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in coopetition is facilitated when coopetitive interorganizational knowledge management helps coopetitors share general and project-specific knowledge while they withhold core knowledge about their firms and clients. To achieve this balance, firms combine formal and informal knowledge protection practices. As theoretical implications, we provide a fine-grained and synoptic understanding of the characteristics of knowledge management among coopetitors. As managerial implications, we call managers' attention to the need to find a balance between knowledge sharing and protection that will help clearly define what kind of knowledge is shared or protected when firms cooperate with rivals.     

Managing tensions in coopetition

Tensions are natural in coopetitive business relationships that simultaneously involve cooperation and competition. The purpose of this study is to investigate how tensions are managed in coopetitive business relationships and examine the potential outcomes of the management of such tensions. The study will focus on various kinds of coopetitive relationships and how the management of the different tensions produces specific outcomes. The empirical study is based on comparative case study research on coopetitive business networks that features two different kinds of cases. The findings of the study contribute to coopetition research by identifying several new perspectives on tensions. Different levels of cooperation and competition in a coopetitive relationship as well as other underlying issues cannot alone determine tensions, but aspects such as the management of tensions are crucial. Most tensions are managed by using styles of competition and avoidance and result in mixed outcomes, which implies both positive and negative perceptions.     

The management of coopetitive tensions within multi-unit organizations

Coopetition strategy is often considered critical for firm performance (Gnyawali, He & Madhavan, 2008; Yami, Castaldo, Dagnino & Le Roy, 2010). However, this paradoxical strategy creates tension, especially when coopetition occurs within an organization (Tsai, 2002; Luo, Slotegraaf & Pan, 2006). This paper addresses existing knowledge gaps by providing the first analysis of the specific managerial methods and the key approaches needed to reduce internal tensions within multi-unit and multi-brand organizations. Using an in-depth study approach in the banking industry, we examine two exemplary cases: Crédit Agricole (CA), which is the leading bank in France and the third leading bank in Europe, and Banque Populaire Caisse d'Epargne (BPCE), which is the third leading bank in France. Our findings indicate that firms simultaneously use formal and informal coordination to manage coopetitive goals. Moreover, to reduce tensions due to coopetition, the banks have developed an original organizational model that allows for the distribution of the antagonist powers and fosters integration. The research shows that inter-unit projects balance responsibilities across the firm, while horizontal coordination and social interaction also eliminate blocking and facilitate decision making. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to examine the management of coopetitive tensions within a multi-unit and multi-brand organization.     

Organizational antecedents of cross-functional coopetition: The impact of leadership and organizational structure on cross-functional coopetition

Cross-functional coopetition (the joint occurrence of cooperation and competition between departments) has received increasing interest from academia and practice. However, there is still little evidence on how cross-functional coopetition can be fostered. We investigate in how far leadership styles (consideration and participation) and organizational structures (centralization and formalization) can be employed to enable a firm's management favoring cross-functional coopetition between departments. Analyzing survey data from 234 German companies, we demonstrate that both consideration and participation have a positive effect on cross-functional coopetition. Additionally, we find that formalization has positive effect on cross-functional coopetition, whereas the effect of centralization is negative. We show that our findings are valid for a multitude of organizational cultures. Finally, we derive implications for research and practice as well as avenues for future research.     

Firm-internal key account management networks: Framework,case study,avenues for future research

Key account management (KAM) is used for managing relationships between a supplier and its strategically important customer firms, that is, the key accounts. KAM activities typically involve a firm-internal network of actors. While there is a rich body of literature on key account managers' work with external networks in customer firms, this study focusses on the much less explored KAM activities in interaction with the firm-internal network that is required to mobilise resources and develop activities towards key accounts. The purpose of this study is to develop a conceptual framework explaining how the firm's capability to manage the internal KAM network contributes to firm performance. We illustrate our framework using case study material and develop avenues for future research along the elements of our framework.     

Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance

This study empirically investigates an important question in the coopetition literature: to what extent does coopetition impact a firm's innovation performance? With a focus on the intensity of competition and intensity of cooperation of a focal firm with its alliance partners, our theory proposes that a moderate level of competition with alliance partners is more beneficial than a very high or a very low level of competition. We further develop the concept of “balance” in coopetition and examine how the interplay of competition and cooperation and the balance between the two matter for innovation performance. Results from our empirical study using data from the semiconductor industry show that competition and cooperation intensities have non-monotonic positive relationship with firm's coopetition-based innovation performance. Further, balanced coopetition (i.e., when competition is moderately high and cooperation is high) has a positive effect on innovation performance. A key contribution of this paper is the conceptualization and empirical demonstration of the effects of various aspects of coopetition such as competition dominant, cooperation dominant, and balanced coopetition on innovation performance.     

Examining cross-functional coopetition as a driver of organizational ambidexterity

Despite the growing number of articles on coopetition, research in the area still lacks insights into this phenomenon on an intraorganizational level. Therefore, this study examines the effect of cross-functional, firm-internal coopetition on organizational ambidexterity (i.e., exploitation and exploration) and the moderating role of social cohesion. Drawing on organizational learning theory and analyzing survey data obtained from 392 department heads and project leaders of new product development teams, we demonstrate that cross-functional coopetition has a significant positive effect on exploratory innovation. Moreover, we find support for the moderating influence of social cohesion on the relationship between coopetition and exploitative innovation. These results not only provide valuable insights for managers in the fields of new product development and innovation, they also highlight the need for further research on the dynamic interplay of competitive and cooperative elements within firms.     

“Vertical coopetition”: The key account perspective

Why do key accounts combine opposing types of relationship with their suppliers? The author has chosen to term this new hybrid form of supplier relationship management, which combines cooperation and price-competitive transactions and reflects the tension between value creation and value appropriation, “vertical coopetition.” She investigates the use of this concept in the context of an in-depth qualitative study, involving, firstly, an exploratory field study and, secondly, four case studies involving leading industrial MNCs. The results indicate that “vertical coopetition” occurs in two forms: when the price-competitive approach is predominant but some cooperation features are still to be found; and when cooperation is predominant, but appeals to competition are still made. Mutually opposed aspects of each form are linked and explained by three pivotal mechanisms, which the author calls, “strengthening”, “correction” and “commuting”. Finally, the study reveals that, increasingly, the key account's brands or Business Unit value¹ are explanatory forces of “vertical coopetition”.     

The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into network coopetition: The case of tourism networks in Poland

While dyadic coopetition drivers have been explored in a number of studies, network coopetition has not received similar attention. Available studies tackle network coopetition from the central actor's perspective, leaving other members beyond the scope of attention. In this study, we aim to develop the understanding of network coopetition adherence by exploring the role of trust-building mechanisms. Interviews with 66 key stakeholders in a mountain tourism destination have been analysed through the lens of the five trust-building mechanisms. Our findings indicate that transference by third-party legitimization and reputation in the network play a vital role in the decision to enter into network coopetition. Inversely, calculative, capability-based and intention-based trust are shown to be difficult to develop and are rarely used. This paper discusses the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings on network coopetition formation.     

Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges

Research on coopetition has been conducted for more than two decades. However, several concepts remain that require elaboration. A study on the literature shows that there is a lack of unified definitions, as various definitions have been employed in previous accomplished research. In this article we suggest that the early definition of coopetition, as a dual relationship between firms that simultaneously cooperate and compete needs to be refined. Our new definition suggests that coopetition is a paradoxical relationship between two or more actors, regardless of whether they are in horizontal or vertical relationships, simultaneously involved in cooperative and competitive interactions. We also highlight important contributions to the field, and some shortcomings that point to future challenges for coopetition research. Finally, we put forward five directions for future research: (1) understand the balancing of cooperation and competition, (2) understand the coopetition paradox and engendered tension, (3) apply a multilevel perspective on coopetition (4) understand the dynamics of coopetitive interaction, and (5) understand how coopetition impacts business models and strategy.     

Mapping the perspectives of coopetition and technology-based strategic networks: A case of smartphones

The aim of this study is to introduce and rearrange various coopetition perspectives and consider their implications in the context of a technology-based case study example from the smartphone industry and especially with the state of strategic networks between smartphone producers and operating systems at one chosen moment (autumn 2012). The case study analysis is based on a strategic map of the (technical) coalitions of firms (cf. Näsi et al., 2001). The most important introduced coopetitive features are present in the studied case. This study emphasizes in the literature review the dichotomy between contextual and procedural coopetition. However, this dichotomy is not solid in practice according to the studied case: the same firm might simultaneously have both contextual and procedural features. The study reveals this overlapping and multidimensional character of coopetition generally and its technological dimension in practice, and the general need to continue to study these coopetitive features. The study shows that contemporary theoretical typologies and frameworks of coopetition require experiments in order to direct the coopetition discussions toward the practical phenomena of business.