Umeå University's logo

In contrast to the conventional strategic management research, which emphasizes either cooperation or competition as a beneficial strategy, emerging literature on coopetition has advanced our understanding of how pursuing both cooperation and competition can yield greater benefits. However, the literature offers limited insights into the multi-level dynamics of coopetition and the role of top management teams (TMT) in navigating paradoxical tensions that cascade across levels ' tensions that, if not tackled well, can overturn the benefits associated with coopetition. Drawing on the paradox literature, this paper develops a conceptual model to illustrate how the coopetition paradox unfolds across different levels, activating performing, organizing, and belonging tensions, that, in turn, shape the interplay between cooperation and competition at the inter-firm level. A key contribution of this paper is its focus on the central role of TMTs in managing multiple tensions across levels, particularly through the synchronous orchestration of internal processes at the firm level while constantly navigating coopetitive interactions at the inter-firm level.

Despite ongoing cooperation among firms in industrial clusters, inter-firm conflicts are also prevalent, and little research has explored how these factors impact new product development (NPD) performance. In this study, we examine the influence of inter-firm cooperation and conflicts (i.e., constructive and destructive) on NPD performance, and explore the mediating role of innovation capability (i.e., incremental and radical) and the joint interactive effects of cooperation and conflicts on innovation capability. Based on data collected from a multi-sourced sample of 181 industrial cluster firms, our results confirm that innovation capability mediates the relationship between cooperation/constructive conflict and NPD performance. Specifically, we find that cooperation and constructive conflict positively affect both types of innovation capability, while destructive conflict negatively affects incremental innovation capability. Moreover, we identify a negative interaction effect of cooperation and constructive conflict on radical innovation capability, and a positive interactive effect of cooperation and destructive conflict on incremental innovation capability. These findings contribute to the literature on industrial clusters and provide practical implications for firm managers and government officials interested in regional development through industrial clusters.

When firms collaborate with their competitors (i.e., engage in coopetition), individual managers play a pivotal role in protecting their firm's sensitive knowledge from potential misuse by partners. But which managers are more successful in performing this role? To better understand the senior-level human resources who help secure a firm's competitive advantage, we build on the Upper Echelons Theory and explore how managers' cognitions and values, as expressed in their demographic characteristics, influence knowledge protection in coopetitive relationships. To test our hypotheses, we use multi-source, time-lagged data on a sample of 176 small and medium-sized firms involved in coopetition. Our results suggest that managers' tenure and female gender relate positively to knowledge protection, which in turn contributes to subsequent firm performance, whereas managers' age and higher education impact knowledge protection negatively. On this basis, our study helps develop micro-macro linkages between the Upper Echelons Theory and the Resource-Based View, and reveals how different managerial characteristics influence knowledge protection, thereby threatening or securing sustainable firm performance. We discuss the implications for knowledge protection processes and human resource management.

Despite substantive evidence showing mixed results on the association between a coopetitive relationship and performance, surprisingly little theory explains the contingencies under which a coopetitive relationship does (or does not) matter to performance. By combining insights from the trust-distrust literature and 18 in-depth managerial conversations, this study unpacks the multidimensional nature of trust (i.e., goodwill and competence) and distrust (i.e., malevolence and discredibility) and suggests that the effect of a coopetitive relationship matters to performance, when both trust and distrust are present (at moderate to high levels), but fails to do so when one of them is low and the other is high. The results based on a sample of Swedish firms provide full support for the hypotheses. In terms of theoretical contributions, this study challenges the old wisdom suggesting trust as good and distrust as bad, extends the current understanding of trust and distrust beyond their one-dimensionality, and provides a novel approach to understanding when a coopetitive relationship performs well and when it does not. In terms of practical relevance, it suggests that firms adopt a paradox mindset (with a focus on both trust and distrust) to unlock the positive potential of a coopetitive relationship.

It is widely acknowledged that firms intensely engage in coopetition (i.e., simultaneous cooperation and competition) and obtain unique benefits from such relationships. However, limited knowledge exists about how and when coopetition intensity leads to superior performance. Building on the theoretical work documenting that both trust and distrust are critical for enhancing performance in interfirm relationships, we address the aforementioned gap by looking into the distinct yet beneficial roles of trust and distrust in coopetition. More specifically, we argue that whereas trust likely serves as an intervening mechanism through which coopetition intensity enhances relationship performance, distrust positively influences the association between coopetition intensity and relationship performance. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 225 Swedish firms engaged in coopetition, and provide empirical evidence that trust and distrust play distinct yet important roles in achieving superior performance from coopetition.

In this paper, I investigate how and why experienced paradoxical tension deteriorates coopetitive performance and when such debilitating effects can be managed. More specifically, by drawing on the paradox theory and emotion literature, I suggest that paradoxical tension (i.e., the cognitive difficulty faced by senior managers as they pursue multiple, simultaneous competing demands of coopetition) creates a state of emotional ambivalence, which in turn, contributes negatively to coopetitive performance. I further propose that the negative consequences can be managed through organizational-level mechanisms, namely, emotional capability and balancing capability. The results show a full mediation of emotional ambivalence and a positive influence of balancing capability. Surprisingly, the moderating effect of emotional capability turns out to be negative. However, interestingly, the moderated-mediation result shows that a blend of higher balancing capability and lower emotional capability produces a positive indirect effect of tension on performance. The paper contributes to the research on strategy and organizational paradoxes.

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.

We develop a theory of emotions in interfirm paradoxical relationships with a focus on coopetition and emotional ambivalence. We suggest that appraisals of paradoxical coopetition situations lead to the arousal of multiple, oppositely valenced emotions of various intensities, combinations of which correspond to different states of emotional ambivalence. We explicate how emotional ambivalence, through managers’ appraisal and emotional contagion processes becomes collective and how it impacts coopetition performance. We further theorize how the negative effect of ambivalence on performance could be minimized and the positive effect could be amplified through emotional capability. Our theory provides a nuanced understanding of the complex nature of emotions, and how they arise, manifest, and impact outcomes in interfirm paradoxical relationships.