Search results

The purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop the understanding of co‐opetition dynamics and to enhance the conceptual clarity of co‐opetition by developing a definition based on previous research efforts.

This conceptual paper integrates various approaches to the concept co‐opetition into a definition that holds for co‐opetitive interactions across multiple levels. Different co‐opetitive interactions and the resulting dynamics are discussed by drawing upon competition and cooperation theories. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research on co‐opetition dynamics.

The paper outlines how different types of co‐opetitive interactions result in archetypical situations where the dynamics of co‐opetition are present as well as where the dynamics of co‐opetition are missing due to a lack of balance between cooperation and competition. It notes four co‐opetitive forces: over‐embedding, distancing, confronting, and colluding. These four forces drive development towards situations without dynamics.

This paper provides a conceptual understanding of co‐opetition dynamics and will reveal that in order to adequately account for co‐opetition dynamics, a definition of co‐opetition must analytically separate the cooperative and the competitive interaction inherent in co‐opetition.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

The purpose of this paper is to rethink the historical emergence of relationship marketing using the work of an early economics writer.

The approach of the paper is a historical review.

It is demonstrated that Eddy's major publication, The New Competition, articulates an argument central to relationship marketing, in terms of the value accorded to inter‐firm relationships. In doing so, this paper extends the work of Keep et al. on relationship marketing and Hollander's own reflection on the nature of competition.

Commensurate with studies that explore the “dark‐side” of relationship marketing, this paper shows how close organizational relations do not necessarily increase the efficiency of the market.

This paper undermines the argument that relationship marketing emerged in the 1970s. It thereby adds further weight to the idea that relationship marketing is not a new paradigm in marketing theory or business practice.

Vigorous competition among companies for customers, talent, and capital serves everyone well, for the most part. But competition can be harmful as well, when companies fight over things that hold little value to customers or that offer little potential for differentiation.

The article discusses how thinking and changing the compete/collaborate ratio offers a way out that benefits all players. By joining forces to carry out common and largely undifferentiated functions or processes, companies can avoid redundant expenditures and capitalize on economies of scale and shared expertise. Strategic collaboration can take place at any stage of an industry's value chain. It can take many other forms, consistent with antitrust laws, including the sharing of back‐office functions, factory production, R&D efforts, marketing and distribution, and repair or return facilities.

Even bitter rivals have sometimes joined forces to achieve common goals and solve common problems. Notable examples are the Airbus consortium of European aircraft manufacturers, the Sematech consortium of US semiconductor manufacturers, banks working together to launch Visa and Mastercard, and small hardware stores using the TruValue organization for cooperative marketing, purchasing, and loyalty programs.

Collaborating on well‐defined activities offers an immediate payoff in reduced costs. And it tends to promote, rather than hamper, constructive competition in the areas most valued by customers.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the study considers research on creativity and innovation in the field of general management and hospitality. Second, the paper develops a theoretical model to integrate individual- and group-level creativity particularly for service organizations.

This paper provides a comprehensive, albeit non-inclusive, review of research on creativity and innovation in organizations. The review reveals that hospitality research on creativity and innovation has not matched the new advances in management research, particularly the multilevel nature of creativity and the outcomes of creativity. Thus, to advance research in hospitality, this paper proposes a multilevel model of creativity based on a strategic contingency power theory. This model examines how individual- and group-level uncertainties hinder creativity. Moreover, the model also considers several uncertainty coping strategies and examines individual- and group-level outcomes of creativity.

The proposed theoretical model integrates individual- and group-level uncertainty determinants of creativity and yields a multilevel approach to creativity. Several testable hypotheses are proposed.

This paper highlights the strategic contingency power approach between individual- and group-level uncertainties in creativity. Uncertainty coping practices that alleviate the negative effects of uncertainties on creativity will be useful to managers and service organizations.

The proposed model provides plausible guidelines that advance creativity research in hospitality management.

The purpose of this paper is to present a discussion with Joan Magretta about her new book, Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy with two veteran S&L contributing editors.

Based on her long editorial relationship with Porter while she was strategy editor of the Harvard Business Review, she suggests some key lessons about applying his concepts that practitioners should take to heart.

The paper reveals that Magretta believes that too many managers get their Porter second hand and what they usually end up getting is both inadequate and inaccurate. She seeks to rectify the most common misconceptions about strategy and Porter's work.

Some key practical lessons are: keep a direct line of sight between your strategy and your financial performance – if strategy is to have any meaning at all, it must link directly to a company's results; a distinctive value proposition is essential for strategy, but don't confuse strategy with marketing (the demand side); the supply side must be linked; meaningful strategy makes it clear what the organization will not do – making trade‐offs is the linchpin that makes competitive advantage possible and sustainable; do not feel you have to “delight” every possible customer. The sign of a good strategy is that it deliberately makes some customers unhappy.

Magretta, who gained front‐line experience as a consultant at Bain, reviews Porter's groundbreaking strategy work and makes it relevant to today's managers

Knowledge is considered as a strategic asset for the organizations, especially for knowledge-intensive firms. Research and development (R&D) is a significant unit in organizations, as it is devoted to knowledge creation and transfer. The success of any R&D project in an organization depends on its innovative value and the transfer of knowledge to the employees. This study aims to focus on factors triggering knowledge-hiding behavior among R&D employees, thus disrupting the knowledge creation in the organization.

The grounded theory approach has been used to analyze qualitative data collected from 19 in-depth interviews of R&D professionals (middle and junior level) working in Indian pharmaceutical firms.

The study identified factors that triggered knowledge-hiding behavior among employees. These factors include distrust, competitive work environment, perceived career insecurity, lack of recognition, lack of reciprocation and lack of confidence in own knowledge. In addition, four hiding strategies used by employees to hide their knowledge from their fellow members were explored and identified: playing innocent, being misleader/evasive hiding, rationalized hiding and counter-questioning.

Besides improving the understanding of knowledge-hiding behavior, particularly in the Indian context, this study has implications for both managerial practices and organizational policies.

This paper highlights the factors influencing knowledge-hiding behavior among R&D employees. Knowledge-hiding construct has not been adequately studied; however, it prevails in the organization and has potential to influence various individual- and organizational-level outcomes. In addition, ways of hiding knowledge used by employees were identified and new forms of strategies named “counter-questioning” were found.

Innovativeness is crucial for industrial cluster firms to gain sustained competitive advantage. This study aims to investigate the effects of inter-firm coopetition on firm innovativeness within a cluster and examines the moderating role of institutional support.

This research adopts an empirical survey method using multi-source data from 181 industrial cluster firms. Regression is used to test the hypotheses of this study.

The results show that cooperation and constructive conflict promote firm innovativeness, while destructive conflict is detrimental to firm innovativeness. Moreover, the study also finds that cooperation interacts with both types of conflict to affect firm innovativeness, where cooperation and constructive conflict interact negatively on firm innovativeness, while cooperation and destructive conflict interact positively on firm innovativeness. In addition, institutional support weakens the effects of cooperation and destructive conflict on innovativeness, respectively, but has no significant moderating effect on the relationship between constructive conflict and innovativeness.

These findings enrich the current research on coopetition. The interaction effects of cooperation and both types of conflict on innovativeness deepen the concept of coopetition and responds to the call to further explore the interaction effects within coopetition. The moderating role of institutional support fills a gap in the empirical research on the role of institutional factors affecting coopetition on innovation and also provides valuable suggestions for firm managers and governments in industrial clusters.

Virtual crowdsourcing initiatives, and in particular crowdsourcing competitions, have become a promising means of harnessing users’ creativity to help corporate innovation. To date, research has tended to focus on the outcome of the competition, i.e. on the creative solution. There is, however, a lack of understanding in such crowdsourcing environments of the creative process itself and the influence of social interaction on the platform during this process. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors conducted a series of qualitative interviews with participants from a major European crowdsourcing platform. The platform acts as an intermediary between companies and firms, and has launched more than 370 idea competitions.

The results suggest that there are not only positive interactions going on between participants. Below the surface, there also appear destructive processes provoked by the fierce competition among the contestants for prizes and a position in the Top Innovator lists. Such destructive behavior includes bullying of successful contestants, excessive use of like-functions among befriended contestants, and mutual donation of prize money among in-group members.

Negative social interaction among contestants of crowdsourcing communities can potentially threaten the platform provider’s business model. Managers of crowdsourcing platforms should engage in the development of strong social norms explicitly disapproving destructive behavior.

This study is the first to investigate in detail the phase of idea generation on crowdsourcing platforms, and the nature and impact of social interactions among contestants.

In dual distribution channel systems, integrated channels (manufacturer-owned) and independent channels (distributor-owned) are likely to adopt destructive behaviours. To suppress such behaviours, manufacturers need to implement conflict management systems. The purpose of this study is to examine the moderating role of conflict-learning capability (CLC) in the relationship between conflict management system and destructive behaviour. This study also investigates whether interactions between conflict management systems and CLC improve the overall channel performance.

Using survey data from 157 Japanese industrial manufacturers, this study conducted regression analyses and mediation analyses.

The results show that boundary and compensation systems have different effects on destructive behaviours. On the one hand, compensation systems with strong CLC have a larger impact, although those with weak CLC can also suppress destructive behaviours to some degree. On the other hand, boundary systems with strong CLC suppress destructive behaviours, but those with weak CLC do not. In addition, this study reveals that manufacturers with strong CLC can indirectly improve overall channel performance by implementing conflict management systems and suppressing destructive behaviours.

Previous studies reveal that boundary and compensation systems suppress destructive behaviours. However, these studies neglect the importance of organisational capability in the successful implementation of conflict management systems. By focusing on CLC, this study advances our understanding of dual distribution and channel conflict.