Nobody Knows – Towards Operationalization of Strategic Dilemmas of Coopetitors

• Authors: Patrycja Klimas , Joanna Radomska

Title variants

PL

Nierozpoznana perspektywa koopetycji – w kierunku operacjonalizacji strategicznych dylematów koopetytorów

Abstracts

PL

Cel: niniejszy artykuł przedstawia ramy operacjonalizacji, które łączą koncepcje koopetycji i otwartej strategii, wykorzystując pryzmat dylematów menedżerskich. Chociaż obie połączone koncepcje zyskują coraz większą uwagę badaczy, brakuje im operacjonalizacji, a zwłaszcza operacjonalizacji spójnej z założeniami zarówno koncepcji koopetycji, jak i otwartych strategii. Stąd też artykuł koncentruje się na operacjonalizacji i pomiarze strategicznych dylematów koopetycji wdrażanej jako strategia otwarta. W ten sposób odnosi się do eksponowanych w literaturze potrzeb opracowania miar i skal, które pozwolą na bardziej szczegółowe badanie, ale także weryfikację konceptualnych podstaw wymiarów otwartej strategii oraz towarzyszących im napięć i paradoksów koopetycji. Metodologia: artykuł ma charakter koncepcyjny. Przedstawiona w nim propozycja operacjonalizacji opiera się na łącznym uwzględnieniu wcześniej opracowanych konceptualizacji dylematów strategicznych i rozważanych wyborów strategicznych. Wyniki: artykuł oferuje kompleksowe operacjonalizacje siedmiu dylematów strategicznych, przed którymi stoją koopetytorzy stosujący otwarte podejście do wdrażania strategii. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: artykuł zwraca uwagę menedżerów na wielowymiarowe postrzeganie dylematów strategicznych napotykanych podczas współpracy z konkurentami i proponuje sposób analizy profilu otwartości, który może być wykorzystany do oceny otwartości firmy, a także do przewidywania trwałości koopetycji. Oryginalność/wartość: zaproponowane ramy koncepcyjne przyczyniają się do rozwinięcia koncepcji połączenia koopetycji ze strategią otwartą, wykorzystując perspektywę dylematów menedżerskich powszechnie spotykanych w obu koncepcjach.

EN

Purpose: This paper presents an operationalization framework that merges the concepts of coopetition and open strategy through the lenses of managerial dilemmas. Although both merged concepts have gained recent and increasing attention, they need sound operationalization, including operationalization when being blended. Therefore, the paper focuses on operationalizing and measuring strategic dilemmas of coopetition implemented as an open strategy. By doing so, the paper addresses the needs for developing measures and scales to allow for more detailed investigation and verification of the conceptual foundations of open strategy dimensions and accompanying tensions and paradoxes of coopetition. Design/methodology/approach: This paper is conceptual. Our proposition for operationalization builds on previously developed conceptualizations of strategic dilemmas and strategic choices considered. Findings: As the main contribution, this paper offers comprehensive operationalizations for seven strategic dilemmas faced by coopetitors following an open approach to strategy implementation. Research limitations/implications: The paper draws managers’ attention to the multidimensional perception of strategic dilemmas faced when cooperating with competitors and provides a way to analyze the profile of openness, which can be used to evaluate a firm’s openness as well as to predict coopetition longevity. Originality/value: The contribution of our conceptual framework is twofold as we advance the concept of merging coopetition with an open strategy using the lenses of managerial dilemmas that are commonly faced in both conceptions.

Keywords

EN

operationalization; measurement; coopetition; open strategy; scale development

PL

operacjonalizacja; pomiar; koopetycja; strategia otwarta; tworzenie skali

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: European Management Studies
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 4-24

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Patrycja Klimas

• Department of Advanced Research in Management, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000000239127389

author

Joanna Radomska

• Strategic Management Department, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000000215978947

References

• Abbott, S. (2009). Social capital and health: The problematic roles of social networks and social surveys. Health Sociology Review, 18(3), 297–306.
• Adobor, H. (2020). Open strategy: Role of organizational democracy. Journal of Strategy and Management, 13(2), 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-07-2019-0125
• Adobor, H. (2021). Open strategy: what is the impact of national culture? Management Research Review, 44(9), 1277–1297. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2020-0334
• 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
• Awaysheh, A., & Klassen, R. D. (2010). The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 30(12), 1246–1268. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011094253
• 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
• Bellucci, C., Lavarda, R.A.B., & Floriani, D.E. (2022). Open strategizing and accelerated internationalization process in different contexts. Journal of Strategy and Management (in press). https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-10-2021-0207
• Belmondo, C., & Sargis-Roussel, C. (2022). The political dynamics of opening participation in strategy: The role of strategy specialists’ legitimacy and disposition to openness. Organization Studies, 44(4), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221080123
• Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Coopetition: new ideas for a new paradigm. In Coopetition. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2020). Configurations of firm-level value capture in coopetition. Long Range Planning, 53(1), Article 101869.
• 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., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9, 577–601.
• 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.
• Cai, J., & Canales, I. (2022). Dual strategy process in open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 55(6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102177
• Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Perego, A., Sianesi, A., & Tumino, A. (2010). Do virtuality and complexity affect supply chain visibility? International Journal of Production Economics, 127(2), 372–383.
• 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
• Chung, B. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2020). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and model. Group & Organization Management, 45(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119839858
• Claycomb, C., & Frankwick, G. L. (2010). Buyers’ perspectives of buyer–seller relationship development. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 252–263.
• Crema, M., Verbano, C., & Venturini, K. (2014). Linking strategy with open innovation and performance in SMEs. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(2), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-07-2013-0042
• Crick, J.M. and Crick, D. (2019). Developing and validating a multi-dimensional measure of coopetition. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(4), 665–689.
• Dapko, J. (2012). Perceived firm transparency: Scale and model development [Doctoral dissertation]. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4025
• 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, 207–226.
• 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.
• Dul, J. (2016). Necessary condition analysis (NCA) logic and methodology of “necessary but not sufficient” causality. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 10–52.
• Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
• Ellegaard, C., Geersbro, J., & Medlin, C. (2010). Value appropriation within a business network [Conference presentation]. The 4th IMP Conference in Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
• Estrada, I., Faems, D., & de Faria, P. (2016). Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 56–65.
• Feng, T., Sun, L., & Zhang, Y. (2010). The effects of customer and supplier involvement on competitive advantage: An empirical study in China. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1384–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.04.006
• Gao, Y., Janssen, M., & Zhang, C. (2021). Understanding the evolution of open government data research: Towards open data sustainability and smartness. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211009955
• Garri, M. (2021). Coopetition, value co-creation, and knowledge-enhancement in the UK alpaca industry: A multi-level mechanism. European Management Journal, 39(5), 545–557.
• 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
• Geerken, T., Schmidt, J., Boonen, K., Christis, M., & Merciai, S. (2019). Assessment of the potential of a circular economy in open economies–Case of Belgium. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 683–699.
• 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
• Gernsheimer, O., Kanbach, D. K., & Gast, J. (2021). Coopetition research – A systematic literature review on recent accomplishments and trajectories. Industrial Marketing Management, 96, 113–134.
• Geurts, A., Broekhuizen, T., Dolfsma, W., & Cepa, K. (2022). Tensions in multilateral coopetition: Findings from the disrupted music industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 532–547.
• 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.
• Gnyawali, D. R., & Song, Y. (2016). Pursuit of rigor in research: Illustration from coopetition literature. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 12–22.
• 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, Article 13981. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.13981abstract
• Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2014). Effects of complexity on the success of temporary organizations: Relationship quality and transparency as substitutes for formal coordination mechanisms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2), 197–213.
• 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
• 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
• Jap, S. D., & Ganesan, S. (2000). Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle: Implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 227–245.
• Kam, B. H., & Lai, M. K. K. (2018). Buyer-supplier exchange relationship: How do exchange partners behave across the relationship life-cycle? Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 113, 239–257.
• Klimas, P., & Radomska, J. (2022). Coopetition and open strategy – Common roots and shared strategic dilemmas. Problemy Zarządzania (Management Issues), 20(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.96.10
• Klimas, P., Ahmadian, A. A., Soltani, M., Shahbazi, M., & Hamidizadeh, A. (2023). Coopetition, Where Do You Come From? Identification, Categorization, and Configuration of Theoretical Roots of Coopetition. SAGE Open, 13(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221085003
• Klimas, P., Stańczyk, S., Sachpazidu, K., Stanimir, A., & Kuźmiński, Ł. (2023). The attributes of inter-organizational relationships: Which fifteen of them really matter to software developers?. Industrial Marketing Management, 110, 1–16.
• Köhler, J., Sönnichsen, S. D., & Beske-Jansen, P. (2022). Towards a collaboration framework for circular economy: The role of dynamic capabilities and open innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(6), 2700–2713.
• Köseoğlu, M.A., Yildiz, M., Okumus, F., & Barca, M. (2019). The intellectual structure of coopetition: past, present and future. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(1), 2–29.
• Le Roy, F., & Chesbrough, H. (2018). Open coopetition. In The Routledge Companion to Coopetition Strategies (pp. 398–408). Routledge.
• Le Roy, F., Robert, F., & Hamouti, R. (2022). Vertical vs horizontal coopetition and the market performance of product innovation: An empirical study of the video game industry. Technovation, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102411
• Lin, Z. (John), Yang, H., & Arya, B. (2009). Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), 921–940. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27735465
• Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P. (2015). Managing inclusiveness and diversity in teams: How leader inclusiveness affects performance through status and team identity. Human Resource Management, 54, 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21658
• Mitrega, M., Forkmann, S., Ramos, C., & Henneberg, S. C. (2012). Networking capability in business relationships-Concept and scale development. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 739–751.
• Morgan, T. R., Richey, R. G., & Ellinger, A. E. (2018). Supplier transparency: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(3), 959–984. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-01-2017-0018
• 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
• Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966.
• Petter, R. R. H., Resende, L. M., de Andrade Júnior, P. P., & Horst, D. J. (2014). Systematic review: An analysis model for measuring the coopetitive performance in horizontal cooperation networks mapping the critical success factors and their variables. The Annals of Regional Science, 53(1), 157–178.
• Pittz, T. G., Madden, L. T., & Mayo, D. (2017). Catalyzing social innovation: Leveraging compassion and open strategy in social entrepreneurship. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(2), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-20-02-2017-B003
• Provan, K. G., & Sydow, J. (2008). Evaluating inter-organizational relationships. In The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 691–716).
• Rai, R., Gnyawali, D. R., & Bhatt, H. (2022). Walking the tightrope: Coopetition capability construct and its role in value creation. Journal of Management, Article 01492063221107873.
• Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.1.027
• Raza-Ullah, T. (2020). Experiencing the paradox of coopetition: A moderated mediation framework explaining the paradoxical tension–performance relationship. Long Range Planning, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.003
• Raza-Ullah, T. (2021). When does (not) a coopetitive relationship matter to performance? An empirical investigation of the role of multidimensional trust and distrust. Industrial Marketing Management, 96, 86–99.
• Rohrbeck, R., Hölzle, K., & Gemünden, H. G. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage–How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management, 39(4), 420–430.
• Scheer, L. K., Kumar, N., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2003). Reactions to perceived inequity in US and Dutch interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 303–316.
• 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
• Splitter, V., Dobusch, L., von Krogh, G., Whittington, R., & Walgenbach, P. (2023). Openness as organizing principle: Introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 44(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221145595/FORMAT/EPU
• Splitter, V., Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2021). Middle managers’ struggle over their subject position in open strategy processes. Journal of Management Studies, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12776
• Stadler, C., Hautz, J., Matzler, K., & von den Eichen, S. (2023). Open strategy: Mastering disruption from outside the C-suite. The MIT Press.
• Stjerne, I., Geraldi, J., & Wenzel, M. (2022). Strategic practice drift: How open strategy infiltrates the strategy process. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12895
• Su, H., Fang, S., & Young, C. (2013). Influences of relationship transparency from intellectual capital reporting on supply chain partnerships with suppliers: A field experiment. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541311318818
• Tacer, B., Ruzzier, M., & Nagy, T. (2018). User-driven innovation: Scale development and validation. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1), 1472–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1484784
• ter Hoeven, C. L., Stohl, C., Leonardi, P., & Stohl, M. (2021). Assessing organizational information visibility: development and validation of the information visibility scale. Communication Research, 48(6), 895–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219877093
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2014). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be. In The service-dominant logic of marketing (pp. 61–74). Routledge.
• Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
• Volschenk, J., Ungerer, M., & Smit, E. (2016). Creation and appropriation of socioenvironmental value in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 109–118.
• Wang, E. T. G., & Wei, H. L. (2007). Interorganizational governance value creation: Coordinating for information visibility and flexibility in supply chains. Decision Sciences, 38(4), 647–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00173.x
• Williams, B. D., Roh, J., Tokar, T., & Swink, M. (2013). Leveraging supply chain visibility for responsiveness: The moderating role of internal integration. Journal of Operations Management, 31(7–8), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2013.09.003
• Xie, C., & Haugland, S. (2016). Formation of reputation in business markets. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 23(1), 25–45.
• Xu, T., Yang, J., Zhang, F., & Guo, W. (2021). Interfirm coopetition, interfirm knowledge creation, and collaborative innovation performance: The moderating roles of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 99, 123–135.
• Yau, O. H. M., Chow, R. P. M., Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., Luk, C. L., & Lee, J. S. Y. (2007). Developing a scale for stakeholder orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11–12), 1306–1327. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821198

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/2956-7602.100.1

Biblioteka Nauki

16647391