Coopetition strategy as interrelated praxis and practices on multiple levels

Tidström, Annika; Rajala, Arto

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.013

Cited by 66 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, research has been conducted on the multiple-levels of coopetition activities Tidstrom and Rajala, 2016). Luo et al (2006) explored how coopetition can occur between the departments of large corporations (as per Luo, 2005;Gnyawali and Park, 2011;Ranganathan et al, 2018).…”

Section: Developments To Coopetition In the Business-to-business Markmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

Crick

2019

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Coopetition is the interplay between cooperation and competition, involving organisations sharing resources and capabilities with rival entities. Earlier work has suggested that coopetition has a linear (positive) relationship with company performance, with scarce considerations towards whether this link could have a diminishing-returns effect. Thus, this paper aims to examine the non-linear (quadratic) relationships between coopetition and three performance outcomes. Using resource-based theory and the relational view, this study is designed to evaluate the dark side of coopetition, in terms of identifying situations when such activities can be harmful for company performance. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from a sample of 101 vineyards and wineries in New Zealand. After purifying the measures through a series of multivariate statistical techniques, the research hypotheses and control paths were tested through hierarchical regression. Furthermore, the statistical data passed all major assessments of reliability and validity (including common method variance). Findings Coopetition was found to have non-linear (quadratic) relationships with customer satisfaction performance, market performance, and financial performance. These results indicate that while coopetition provides organisations with new resources, capabilities and opportunities, there are some dark sides of coopetition activities. With “too little” coopetition, firms might struggle to survive within their markets, with an insufficient volume of resources and capabilities. With “too much” coopetition, companies could experience increased tensions, potentially lose intellectual property and dilute their competitive advantages. Such negative outcomes could harm their performance in several capacities. Practical implications Firms should appreciate that coopetition is a competitive strategy. In other words, regardless of how much collaboration occurs, coopetition partners are still competing entities. It is recommended that organisations should strive to engage in an “optimal-level” of coopetition, as “too little” or “too much” of such strategies can be harmful for various types of company performance. To mitigate some of the dark sides of coopetition, businesses should attempt to use all the benefits of collaborating with competitors (i.e. accessing new resources, capabilities and opportunities), but at the same time, not become dependent on rivals’ assets. Originality/value This paper develops and tests a framework examining the non-linear (quadratic) linkages between coopetition and multiple assessments of company performance. It highlights the benefits and drawbacks of businesses sharing resources and capabilities with their competitors. Contrary to prior studies in the business-to-business marketing literature, the results signify that firms need to engage in an “optimal-level” of coopetition to minimise certain dark sides, such as reduced company performance. After providing some practitioner implications, this paper ends with a series of limitations and avenues for future research.

show abstract

Section: Developments To Coopetition In the Business-to-business Markmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

Crick

2019

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most research focuses on deliberate coopetitive strategies, designating the emergent strategies as the first stage of a coopetitive process (Mariani, 2007). Tidström and Rajala (2016) for instance note a series of stages and identify a pre-coopetition phase and later stages, such as silent, active, and forced coopetition phases. However, lifecycle models have been identified as rather linear, unidirectional, and predictable (Bengtsson et al, 2010).…”

Section: Emergent Coopetition and Sensemakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We add to the small body of empirical work that explores coopetition as an emergent property (Dahl, 2014). Unlike previously available expositions of coopetition over time (Tidström & Rajala, 2016), we address the impact of a history of coopetitive exploitation. Taking a lead from Tidström and Rajala (2016), we detail how these historical legacies exert effects at different levels of interaction (i.e., individual, company, network, and ecosystem).…”

Section: Conclusion and Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lundgren-Henriksson and Kock (2016b, p. 98) recently comment that "coopetition can be approached as a strategic change that consequently triggers sensemaking processes in order to reach a shared understanding that enables actions and interactions." Studies of how coopetitive arrangements function rarely explore how they came into being (Tidström & Hagberg-Andersson, 2012;Tidström & Rajala, 2016). Dahl (2014, p. 272) pointedly notes to the lack of "research going beyond the motives behind [simultaneous] inter-competitor cooperation and explaining coopetitive interactions from a process perspective as the relationship unfolds over time."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emergent coopetition from a sensemaking perspective: A multi-level analysis

Pattinson

Nicholson

Lindgreen

2018

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights  This study explores the emergence of coopetition in a complex innovation network context  The findings offer a rare empirical exposition of the impact of history on coopetitive exploitation  With a multi-level approach, the case study exposes the navigation of coopetitive tensions stemming from the historic development of the coopetitive norms  Companies that possess a coopetitive mindset from their conception are distinct from those that only develop a coopetitive mindset after their conception  Adopting a narrative and visual process mapping approach, we also reveal the impact of time on coopetitive interactions ABSTRACT This article considers the development of coopetitive sensemaking across multiple levels of analysis, which include individual (micro), organizational/inter-organizational (meso), and network/ecosystem (macro). Using a sensemaking approach, a series of proposed phases are posited in a processual model using teleological assumptions of time to expose coopetition as an emergent concept. With a coopetitive mindset as an important focus at the individual level of analysis, the processual model inculcates notions of competitive uncertainty, being born coopetitive, coopetitive exploration, exploitation, and a coopetitive uncertainty phase. Using different pathways through these phases, sensemaking modes are proposed, which include network and ecosystem sensitivity. The central contribution of the article is to expose the interplay of sensemaking across multiple levels of analysis and across teleological phases.

show abstract

“…In the relatively few studies that consider sensegiving in business-tobusiness exchange, coopetition is the primary subject matter. Studies in this area show that sensegiving is important when senior and middle managers attempt to reconcile with the identities of competitors and cooperators and that this affects relational dynamics (Lundgren-Henriksson and Kock, 2016;Tidström and Rajala, 2016).…”

Section: Sensemaking and Sensegiving In Business-to-business Interactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensemaking, sensegiving and absorptive capacity in complex procurements

Prior

Keränen

Koskela

2018

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores and describes i) the nature of knowledge exchange processes at the frontline employee (FLE) level and ii) how FLE sensemaking processes affect buyer firm knowledge management practices in complex procurement contexts. The study utilizes an indepth case analysis in the mining industry to identify a taxonomy of four buyer sensemaking investment/ supplier collaboration profiles, to describe three sensegiving supplier roles ('confidence builders', 'competent collaborators', and 'problem-solvers') and to explore how these evolve during complex procurement implementation. The study concludes with a conceptual model of the apparent linkages between sensemaking, sensegiving and buyer firm absorptive capacity in complex procurements. This study shows how micro-level (FLE) interactions influence macro-level knowledge integration (absorptive capacity) in the buyer firm. For managers, the study shows how the allocation of time and resources affects FLElevel knowledge exchange, with ultimate effect on buyer firm absorptive capacity.

show abstract

Coopetition strategy as interrelated praxis and practices on multiple levels

Cited by 66 publications

References 55 publications

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

Emergent coopetition from a sensemaking perspective: A multi-level analysis

Sensemaking, sensegiving and absorptive capacity in complex procurements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About