In this study, we focus on the micro-foundations of coopetition capability and ask: "where does coopetition capability come from?" Drawing upon social psychology and cognitive theories, we seek to offer insights into the micro-foundations of coopetition capability by focusing on the role of top management team (TMT) diversity. We suggest that TMT diversity emerges from two distinct attributes of the team members: surface-level (e.g., age, gender, nationality) and deep-level (e.g., knowledge and experience). We argue that TMT diversity based on surface-level attributes contributes negatively while TMT diversity based on deep-level attributes contributes positively to coopetition capability. We test our hypotheses using a novel dataset that combines primary data and employee level secondary data of a sample of 315 Swedish firms. Results provide broad support for our hypotheses. We discuss the implications of our findings and key limitations of our study.

This research investigates the extent to which small and large firms differ when assessing the benefits and risks provided by competitors as partners in innovation. Scholars have shown that coopetition can provide both significant benefits and risks for participating firms. The risks associated with firm competition and the trade-off firms make between the risks and benefits that can be obtained through coopetition must be considered when choosing a partnering firm. In addition, we argue that the firm size could affect the evaluation of benefits and the willingness to take risks such that small and large firms differ in their decision making. Therefore, we address the following questions: First, when choosing a coopetitor with which to innovate, to what extent do small and large firms differ in their evaluation of the benefits and risks associated to coopetition? Second, how does this evaluation influence firms’ willingness to coopete? We draw on research on coopetition to hypothesize that small and large firms differ in their evaluation of the six most important benefits of coopetition. To test our hypotheses, we rely on an experimental research design based on a choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis applied to a sample of innovative Swedish firms. Our results confirm that small and large firms value the benefits and risks associated with coopetitors differently. We show that small firms are less reluctant to coopete than large firms, especially if coopetition allows them to reduce their costs and learn from their coopetitor. In contrast, we show that large firms agree to coopete if coopetition enables them to reduce their time-to-market.

While a growing body of research has recognized that coopetition is paradoxical and creates tension, limited research has examined how paradoxical tension manifests and impacts firm performance. We theorize that paradoxical tension in coopetition manifests in the cognition and emotion of senior managers and that high level of paradoxical tension creates dysfunctional behaviors that compromise performance. We further argue that the detrimental effect on performance could be mitigated when firms have capabilities to understand and deal with the paradoxical situation. We conceptualize coopetition capability as a three dimensional construct consisting of cognitive, emotional, and balancing dimensions, and empirically examine its moderating role on the tension-performance relationship. Results based on survey and secondary data from 187 high technology and knowledge intensive firms show that experienced paradoxical tension does indeed hurt firm performance. Results also show that firms that possess coopetition capability can analyze the paradoxical situation, emotionally deal with the paradox, and maintain a balance in the midst of competing demands from competition and cooperation do minimize the negative performance effect of paradoxical tension in coopetition.

Firms holding complementary knowledge and expertise increasingly engage in ecosystems to co-create and jointly deliver tailored-made solutions to industrial customers. Interdependencies inherent in ecosystems make partner alignment a unique challenge related to divergence in partners’ expectations about structure and roles. Such divergence in expectations gives rise to uncertainty in the interactions among the interdependent actors. Yet the level of interpartner uncertainty is heightened in ecosystems characterized by frequent coopetitive interactions and temporal alignment of a set of actors in multiple projects. To acknowledge this, we introduce the concept floating ecosystem. In floating ecosystems, besides uncertainty about how to align activities and actors within one project, there is also interpartner uncertainty about how partners will behave in other projects and relationships. Thus, the question about how to manage and navigate within these dynamic and complex ecosystems to manage the multifaceted nature of interpartner uncertainty is of critical importance. In light of uncertainty and interdependence, trust has been suggested as a unique organizing principle. Drawing on the idea that trust and distrust are distinct phenomena, we also argue that distrust is a distinct organizing principle that has been neglected. We conduct a case study of the Swedish robotics and automation ecosystem and explore the nature of interpartner uncertainty in this ecosystem and the mechanisms through which trust and distrust empower firms to deal with different facets of uncertainty. Our findings establish that trust and distrust work as complementary organizing principles, which operate based on distinct orienting and enabling mechanisms empowering firms to maintain fruitful interactions despite the presence of increased interpartner uncertainty.

Coopetition provide both benefits and risks for firms developing joint innovation. But these benefits and risksdiffer for small and large firms. It thus seems essential to understand how small and large firms make a trade-offbetween benefits and risks when choosing a competitor to innovate with. We conduct an experimental researchdesign based on a choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC) applied to a sample of innovative Swedish firms. Ourresults confirm that small and large firms value the benefits and risks associated with coopetitors differently. Smallfirms are less reluctant to create alliances with competitors than large firms, especially if it allows them to reducetheir costs and learn from their competitor. Large firms are ready to coopete to reduce their time-to-market andtheir costs.

Recent conceptual studies identify gain, normative and hedonic factors as three categories of motivations of consumer proenvironmental behavior. However, empirical understanding of how these motivations interact and affect proenvironmental behavior is limited. This study is based on a survey of car owners in Sweden (N = 573) and uses structural equation modeling to analyze the data. The empirical findings point to the importance of all three motivations (gain, normative and hedonic) in consumer electric vehicle adoption intentions. Furthermore, for consumers who perceive high social norms regarding sustainable consumption, the direct effect of hedonic motivations on behavioral intention is stronger, and the direct effect of gain motivations is insignificant. The business strategy implications indicate that targeting consumers who perceive high social norms in relation to proenvironmental behavior and communicating the hedonic and normative aspects of proenvironmental behaviors to this group might be more effective than general mass communication.

In this chapter, we develop a fundamental understanding of an essential yet overlooked component of alliance capability, namely coopetition capability. We suggest that coopetition capability based on three dimensions—analytical, balancing, and emotional—reflects managers' ability to handle paradoxical demands. This capability is especially helpful and needed to deal with coopetition paradox and the resultant paradoxical tension. Coopetition capability not only allows firms to balance their cooperative and competitive interactions but also helps managers to keep a moderate level of tension to boost performance outcomes.

Coopeting with other firms can be a necessary, but risky, strategy for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This chapter discusses specificities of small firms that make coopetition important for their growth and success, but also make them particularly vulnerable. Relationships with larger firms are especially challenging due to power asymmetry, and SMEs need to consider their entire portfolio of alliances to manage them. We explore capabilities needed by SMEs to cope with the challenges and define dimensions of alliance management and portfolio management capabilities. We also provide directions for further research.