No abstract

Traditionally the relationships between competitors in the industrial market have been based on competition. The network approach and literature about strategic alliances have provided new insights into cooperation between firms based on the value chain. The empirical findings from two in‐depth studies, the rack and pinion industry and the lining industry, show that a firm can be involved in four different types of horizontal relationships at the same time. Apart from relationships consisting of competition or cooperation, a firm can live in symbiosis by coexisting with other relationships, or being involved in a relationship simultaneously containing elements of both cooperation and competition. Consequently, a successful firm needs to focus on relationship management in order to achieve a portfolio consisting of the four types of relationships to other horizontal firms.

No abstract

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.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop the understanding of co-opetition dynamics and to enhance the conceptual clarity of co-opetition by developing a definition based on previous research efforts. Design/methodology/approach -This conceptual paper integrates various approaches to the concept co-opetition into a definition that holds for co-opetitive interactions across multiple levels. Different co-opetitive interactions and the resulting dynamics are discussed by drawing upon competition and cooperation theories. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research on co-opetition dynamics. Findings -The paper outlines how different types of co-opetitive interactions result in archetypical situations where the dynamics of co-opetition are present as well as where the dynamics of co-opetition are missing due to a lack of balance between cooperation and competition. It notes four co-opetitive forces: over-embedding, distancing, confronting, and colluding. These four forces drive development towards situations without dynamics. Originality/value -This paper provides a conceptual understanding of co-opetition dynamics and will reveal that in order to adequately account for co-opetition dynamics, a definition of co-opetition must analytically separate the cooperative and the competitive interaction inherent in co-opetition.

In this study, we apply a paradox perspective on coopetition to investigate the effects of coopetition paradox on managers' experience and perception of coopetitive tensions, and the role of coopetition capability in managing such tensions. We propose a theoretical model to posit that the intensity of coopetition paradox positively associates with managers' experience of external tension, which in turn lead them to perceive internal tension. Further, coopetition capability plays a dual role-moderates the relation between coopetition paradox and external tension, and reduces internal tension. We tested hypotheses on a representative multi-industry sample of 1532 firms in Sweden and the results confirm them. Our study contributes to understanding the critical role of coopetition capability that enables firms to maintain a moderate level of tension regardless of the intensity of coopetition paradox.