Coopetition and Open Strategy - Common Roots and Shared Strategic Dilemmas

• Autorzy: Patrycja Klimas , Joanna Radomska

Warianty tytułu

Koopetycja i otwarta strategia - wspólne korzenie oraz współdzielone dylematy strategiczne

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

Cel: obserwowane obecnie, wielowymiarowe presje oraz napięcia zarządcze wzmocniły potrzebę przemyślenia i przeformułowania założeń odnośnie do budowy przewagi konkurencyjnej, dając jednocześnie asumpt do rozwoju badań w obszarze strategii otwartych czy współpracy międzyorganizacyjnej. Uwzględniając powyższe, w artykule podjęto próbę integracji otwartego podejścia do formułowania strategii z koncepcją koopetycji, mając na względzie przede wszystkim zrozumienie zbieżnych elementów oby- dwu - dotychczas ujmowanych rozłącznie - relacyjnych podejść do formułowania skutecznych strategii. Metodologia: artykuł ma charakter koncepcyjny i ukierunkowany jest na rozpoznanie dopasowania oraz wspólnych korzeni poznawczych koncepcji koopetycji oraz otwartych strategii. Identyfikacji wspólnych korzeni teoretycznych dokonano z wykorzystaniem perspektywy siedmiu paradoksów zarządczych. Wyniki: rozpoznano zbiór siedmiu dylematów strategicznych wyłaniających się z nałożenia obydwu - indywidualnie paradoksalnych - podejść. Na kanwie rozważań koncepcyjnych zaproponowano kilka kierunków badawczych, a w ich ramach konkretnych pytań badawczych. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: postawione w efekcie teoretyzowania pytania badawcze mogą stanowić asumpt do podjęcia badań empirycznych przez badaczy zainteresowanych wzmocnieniem teoretycznych podwalin koopetycji, otwartych strategii, jak i obydwu tych koncepcji jednocześnie. Jako artykuł koncepcyjny narażony jest on na typowe ograniczenia uwarunkowane subiektywizmem badaczy. Oryginalność/wartość: jest to pierwsze badanie, w którym zastosowano perspektywę połączenia strategii otwartej i koopetycji. (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

Purpose: The impact of the observed multidimensional pressures and managerial tensions has increased the necessity to rethink the sources of competitive advantage, giving the ground for developing open and collaborative streams of research. This paper addresses this necessity by blending the lenses of open strategizing with coopetition phenomena in order to understand the convergence between those two relational approaches to strategy formulation. Design/methodology/approach: It is a conceptual paper in which we recognize the compatibility and common roots of coopetition and open strategy. These we recognized through using seven managerial paradoxes. Findings: We explore seven strategic dilemmas that emerged from the overlapping contexts of those two - individually paradoxical - approaches. We identify several research avenues and specific research questions accompanying them. Research limitations/implications: The research questions asked at the end of theorization that we see as relevant can provide the ground for further research by scholars interested in strengthening the theoretical foundations of either coopetition or open strategy, but also in these two concepts simultaneously. As a conceptual article, this paper is prone to researchers' subjectivity bias. Originality/value: This is the first study where the perspective of blending open strategy and coopetition is applied. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Koopetycja; Przewaga konkurencyjna; Strategia przedsiębiorstwa

EN

Coopetition; Competitive advantage; Corporation strategies

• Czasopismo: Problemy Zarządzania
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: 20
• Numer: nr 2 (96)
• Strony: 197-214

Twórcy

autor

Patrycja Klimas

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Poland

autor

Joanna Radomska

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Poland

Bibliografia

• Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306-333. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821.
• Adobor, H. (2019). Opening up strategy formulation: Benefits, risks, and some suggestions. Business Horizons, 62(3), 383-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.01.005.
• Alexy, O., West, J., Klapper, H., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Surrendering control to gain an advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1704-1727. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2706.
• Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.004.
• Aten, K., & Thomas, G. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627269.
• Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115, 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.005.
• Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E., (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open, collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399-1417. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618.
• Baptista, J., Wilson, A. D., Galliers, R. D., & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 322-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.005.
• Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). "Coopetition" in business networks - To cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-X.
• Bengtsson, M., Raza-Ullah, T., & Vanyushyn, V. (2016). The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.008.
• Birkinshaw, J. (2017). Reflections on open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 423-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.11.004.
• Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060-2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.032.
• Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0168-6.
• Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., Ritala, P., & Kraus, S. (2018a). Coopetition in new product development alliances: Advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. British Journal of Management, 29(3), 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12213.
• Bouncken, R. B., Laudien, S. M., Fredrich, V., & Görmar, L. (2018b). Coopetition in coworking spaces: Value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space. Review of Managerial Science, 12(2), 385-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0267-7.
• Chai, L., Li, J., Clauss, T., & Tangpong, C. (2019). The influences of interdependence, opportunism, and technology uncertainty on interfirm coopetition. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(5), 948-964. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2018-0208.
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2020). To recover faster from COVID-19, open up: Managerial implications from an open innovation perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 410-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.010.
• Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166416.
• Chin, K. S., Chan, B. L., & Lam, P. K. (2008). Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4), 437-454. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570810868326.
• Clegg, S., & Kornberger, M. (2015). Analytical frames for studying power in strategy as practice and beyond. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 389-404). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139681032.023.
• Crick, J. M. (2019). Moderators affecting the relationship between coopetition and company performance. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 34(2), 518-531. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2018-0102.
• Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2020). Coopetition and sales performance: Evidence from non-mainstream sporting clubs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(1), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2020-0273.
• Crick, J. M., Crick, D., & Chaudhry, S. (2020). The dark side of coopetition: It's not what you say but the way that you do it. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2020.1817970.
• Czakon, W., & Czernek, K. (2016). The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into network coopetition: The case of tourism networks in Poland. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.010.
• Czakon, W., & Kawa, A. (2018). Network myopia: An empirical study of network perception. Industrial Marketing Management, 73, 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.02.005.
• Czakon, W., Rogalski, M., & Mucha-Kuś, K. (2014). Coopetition research landscape - A systematic literature review 1997-2010. Journal of Economics & Management, 17, 122-150.
• Della Corte, V., & Sciarelli, M. (2012). Can coopetition be a source of competitive advantage for strategic networks?. Corporate Ownership and Control, 10(1), 363-379. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv10i1c3art5.
• Devece, C., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2019). Coopetition as the new trend in inter-firm alliances: Literature review and research patterns. Review of Managerial Science, 13(2), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0245-0.
• Dobusch L., Dobusch L., & Müller-Seitz G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia's open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736930.
• Dorn, S., Schweiger, B., & Albers, S. (2016). Levels, phases, and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 34(5), 484-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.009.
• Etzioni, A. (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00366.x.
• Fernandez, A. S., Le Roy F., & Gnyawali D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.004.
• Fernandez, A. S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2016). Managing tensions related to information in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.010.
• Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition research: Towards a better understanding of past trends and future directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(4), 492-521. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2015.068637.
• Gast, J., Gundolf, K., Harms, R., & Collado, E. M. (2019). Knowledge management and coopetition: How do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge? Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.12.007.
• Gegenhuber, T., & Dobusch, L. (2017). Making an impression through openness: How open strategy-making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 337-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.09.001.
• Gnyawali, D. R., & Ryan Charleton, T. (2018). Nuances in the interplay of competition and cooperation: Towards a theory of coopetition. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2511-2534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318788945.
• Goulart Heinzen, C., & Lavarda, R. A. B. (2021). Open strategizing activities & practices: The openness and closure paradox control by digital tools. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 13981. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.13981abstract.
• Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & Von Krogh, G., (2011). Social software and strategy. Long Range Planning, 44(5/6), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2011.08.001.
• Hardy, C., Lawrence, T., & Phillips, N. (2006). Swimming with sharks: Creating strategic change through multi-sector collaboration. Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(1/2), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSCM.2006.011105.
• Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.12.001.
• Heracleous, L., Gößwein, J., & Beaudette, P. (2018). Open strategy-making at the Wikimedia Foundation: A dialogic perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 54(1), 5-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317712665.
• Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1986). The strategic importance of managing myopia. Sloan Management Review (1986-1998), 28(1), 5.
• Hutter, K., Nketia, B. A., & Füller, J. (2017). Falling short with participation - different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.005.
• Jakobsen, S. (2020). Managing tension in coopetition through mutual dependence and asymmetries: A longitudinal study of a Norwegian R&D alliance. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.07.006.
• Karhu, P., & Ritala, P. (2018). Dilemmas and paradoxes: how managers make the toughest decisions. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-11-2016-0140.
• Klimas, P., Czakon, W., & Fredrich, V. (2022). Strategy frames in coopetition: An examination of coopetition entry factors in high-tech firms. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.04.005.
• Knight, E., Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2018). The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on meaning-making in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 894-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2727.
• Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social media and their affordances for organizing: A review and agenda for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150-188. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0144.
• Lewicka, D., & Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A. (2020). Interorganizational trust in business relations: Cooperation and coopetition. In A. Zakrzewska-Bielawska & I. Staniec (Eds.), Contemporary challenges in cooperation and coopetition in the age of Industry 4.0 (pp. 155-174). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30549-9_8.
• Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., & Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: how the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 371-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.001.
• Mack, D. Z., & Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.004.
• Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.004.
• Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: a critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0296.
• Morton, J., Wilson, A., Galliers, R. D., & Marabelli, M. (2019). Open strategy and IT: A review and research agenda. In G. Seidl, D. Whittington, & R. von Krogh (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 169-185). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921.011.
• Neeley, T., & Leonardi, P. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media use: The paradox of non-work interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 922-946. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2739.
• Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 257-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393853.
• Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation - A coopetition strategy. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3), 201-221. https://doi.org/10.1057/dbm.2010.23.
• Perr, J., Appleyard, M. M., & Sullivan, P. (2010). Open for business: Emerging business models in open-source software. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4), 432-456. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2010.035984.
• Raza-Ullah, T. (2020). Experiencing the paradox of coopetition: A moderated mediation framework explaining the paradoxical tension-performance relationship. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.003.
• Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.001.
• Ritala, P., & Tidström, A. (2014). Untangling the value-creation and value-appropriation elements of coopetition strategy: A longitudinal analysis on the firm and relational levels. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4), 498-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.05.002.
• Rusko, R. (2011). Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.10.002.
• Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2018). Inter-organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta-problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 830-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2723.
• Seidl, D., von Krogh, G., & Whittington, R. (2019). Defining open strategy: Dimensions, practices, impacts, and perspectives. In Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 9-26). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921.002.
• Soppe, B., Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (2014). Vertical coopetition in entrepreneurial firms: Theory and practice. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(4), 548-564. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-03-2014-0052.
• Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44-69. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.44.
• Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D., & Schoder, D. (2017). Open strategy: Literature review, re-analysis of cases, and conceptualization as a practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.01.003.
• Teulier, R., & Rouleau, L. (2013). Middle managers' sensemaking and inter-organizational change initiation: Translation spaces and editing practices. Journal of Change Management, 13(3), 308-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.822674.
• Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.001.
• Whitehurst, J. (2015). The open organization: Igniting passion and performance. Harvard Business School Press Books.
• Whittington, R. (2019). Opening strategy: Professional strategists and practice change, 1960 to today. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198738893.001.0001.
• Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00762.x.
• Wu, C. H., Kuo, C. L., & Yu, C. S. (2017). Do communication and coopetition matter? A study on the effects of mobile features on collaborative learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 11(4), 340-359. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2017.087085.
• Yakis-Douglas, B., Angwin, D., Ahn, K., & Meadows, M. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organisational transition. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 411-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.007.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.7172/1644-9584.96.10