Walking the Tightrope: Coopetition Capability Construct and Its Role in Value Creation

Abstract

Prior research emphasizes the paradoxical nature of coopetition and the need for specialized capabilities—coopetition capability—to deal effectively with opportunities and challenges stemming from the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition and to create superior value. However, we know little about the underlying conceptual properties of coopetition capability (construct clarity) and lack a reliable and valid scale to measure it (construct validity). We conduct a study in three phases to address this critical gap. First, building on paradox literature, we conceptualize coopetition capability as a multidimensional construct reflected by three underlying dimensions: coopetition mindset, analytical acumen, and executional skills. Second, we develop a 15-item psychometrically valid scale using a sample of 647 coopetitive alliances in high-technology sectors. Finally, using a matched sample of 536 coopetitive alliances, we extend the focal construct's nomological network by examining two relationships: coopetition experience's impact on coopetition capability and the effect of coopetition capability on the relationship between the coopetition paradox and value creation. Overall, our paper lays a foundation for deeper theory development and empirical research on coopetition by providing much-needed construct clarity and psychometrically valid measures for coopetition capability.

Relational resources for innovation ambidexterity within coopetitive relationships: the contingent role of managerial ambidexterity

“…Additionally, this result also adds to the knowledge of both the OM and coopetition disciplines (e.g. Mar ıa Dolores et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2014;Ritala, 2012;Rai et al, 2022). In essence, our study suggests that it is not always necessary for coopetitors to possess specialised complementarities to generate innovation ambidexterity as the more common and generic complementarities can also result in such innovations in the presence of coopetitors' managerial ambidexterity.…”

“…, 2008). However, the complementarities of both Sony and Samsung arguably helped in the development of various innovations (Gnyawali and Park, 2011; Rai et al. , 2022).…”

“…Moreover, coopetitors' higher relative absorptive capacity (Ritala et al. , 2014) could make the exchange of generic complementarities not only easily accessible but also less prominent wherein resource prominence is a necessary precondition to developing innovations in coopetition (Rai et al. , 2022; Seepana et al.…”

“…This scenario is relatable to various real-world examples -Microsoft has not managed to build market leadership in search engines or maps, despite the several complementary resources such as skills and product development capabilities that it possesses in common with its strategic alliance partners (Hidding et al, 2008). However, the complementarities of both Sony and Samsung arguably helped in the development of various innovations (Gnyawali and Park, 2011;Rai et al, 2022). The underlying reason for Sony and Samsung's success could be attributed to the specialised complementarities (e.g.…”

“…Thus, our finding is consistent with notions that suggest that firms cannot count on generic and pre-existing complementary resources to gain market leadership and innovation (Hidding et al, 2008). Moreover, coopetitors' higher relative absorptive capacity (Ritala et al, 2014) could make the exchange of generic complementarities not only easily accessible but also less prominent wherein resource prominence is a necessary precondition to developing innovations in coopetition (Rai et al, 2022;Seepana et al, 2021;Kalaitzi et al, 2019). Thus, our study concludes that the higher the exchange of such complementary resources between coopetitors, the lower the opportunities to transform complementary resources into innovation ambidexterity.…”