An appreciative inquiry into the first export order

2018

QMR

193

Purpose-The purpose of this study is to explore the facets, antecedents and consequences of coopetition using three dimensions of entrepreneurial marketing theory and insights from the resource-based view of the firm. Coopetition is the interplay between competition and cooperation in which companies seek to collaborate with their rivals with the aim of enhancing performance (e.g., sales) compared to if they operated independently. Design/methodology/approach-This paper reports on 38 interviews across 25 firms competing in the New Zealand wine industry. Triangulation procedures was via primary and secondary methods. The data were analysed through a series of techniques to produce credible findings. Findings-Coopetition is comprised of resource and capability-sharing activities. These activities are driven by an industry-wide cooperative mind-set; also, firms having access to competitors' resources and capabilities. Coopetition was found to increase performance in ways that would not be possible if firms did not collaborate with their rivals. Originality/value-Previous studies have focused on the facets and consequences of coopetition rather than its antecedents. Whilst exploration of these facets was undertaken in this study to reinforce prior research, this paper also investigates the antecedents of coopetition underpinned by resource-based theory to contribute to the entrepreneurial marketing literature. Further, the paper uncovered that coopetition activities drive different organisational performance outcomes, depending on firms' size and managers' objectives.

Section: Resource-based Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Are the Consequences Of Coopetition Activities?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The facets, antecedents and consequences of coopetition

2018

QMR

193

“…For instance, Westhead et al (2001) highlighted that some entities can compete through their age and market experience to out-perform their rivals. Third, internationalisation can yield greater sales that would not exist in a home market (following Low, 2007;Cadogan et al, 2009;Javalgi et al, 2011;Crick and Crick, 2016c;Crick et al, 2019b). Thus, the outcome variables were controlled by degree of internationalisation.…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

2019

JBIM

Purpose Coopetition is the interplay between cooperation and competition, involving organisations sharing resources and capabilities with rival entities. Earlier work has suggested that coopetition has a linear (positive) relationship with company performance, with scarce considerations towards whether this link could have a diminishing-returns effect. Thus, this paper aims to examine the non-linear (quadratic) relationships between coopetition and three performance outcomes. Using resource-based theory and the relational view, this study is designed to evaluate the dark side of coopetition, in terms of identifying situations when such activities can be harmful for company performance. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from a sample of 101 vineyards and wineries in New Zealand. After purifying the measures through a series of multivariate statistical techniques, the research hypotheses and control paths were tested through hierarchical regression. Furthermore, the statistical data passed all major assessments of reliability and validity (including common method variance). Findings Coopetition was found to have non-linear (quadratic) relationships with customer satisfaction performance, market performance, and financial performance. These results indicate that while coopetition provides organisations with new resources, capabilities and opportunities, there are some dark sides of coopetition activities. With “too little” coopetition, firms might struggle to survive within their markets, with an insufficient volume of resources and capabilities. With “too much” coopetition, companies could experience increased tensions, potentially lose intellectual property and dilute their competitive advantages. Such negative outcomes could harm their performance in several capacities. Practical implications Firms should appreciate that coopetition is a competitive strategy. In other words, regardless of how much collaboration occurs, coopetition partners are still competing entities. It is recommended that organisations should strive to engage in an “optimal-level” of coopetition, as “too little” or “too much” of such strategies can be harmful for various types of company performance. To mitigate some of the dark sides of coopetition, businesses should attempt to use all the benefits of collaborating with competitors (i.e. accessing new resources, capabilities and opportunities), but at the same time, not become dependent on rivals’ assets. Originality/value This paper develops and tests a framework examining the non-linear (quadratic) linkages between coopetition and multiple assessments of company performance. It highlights the benefits and drawbacks of businesses sharing resources and capabilities with their competitors. Contrary to prior studies in the business-to-business marketing literature, the results signify that firms need to engage in an “optimal-level” of coopetition to minimise certain dark sides, such as reduced company performance. After providing some practitioner implications, this paper ends with a series of limitations and avenues for future research.

“…This means that it is becoming increasingly useful for academics to take notice of what entrepreneurs and management teams that confront real entrepreneurial marketing issues believe are areas of interest and address these with appropriate research studies. This may include interventions to demonstrate impact such as via action research or appreciative inquiry (Crick and Crick, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guest editorial

2018

QMR

Self Cite

particular academics will have their own opinion about what topics lie at the interface. However, some studies view entrepreneurial marketing in a behavioural sense as a "process", whereas in other studies, the entrepreneur and/or their management team together with their firm are respective units of analysis. Although entrepreneurial marketing activities can occur in larger firms (Miles and Darroch, 2006), the focus of the analysis has tended to be in smaller-sized firms. In fact, some academics classify particular studies involving larger firms under the domain of "corporate entrepreneurship". An interest in smaller-sized firms is relevant given that for some time it has been noted that first, various countries contain many of these types of businesses across various sectors; second, owner-managers' objectives and strategies may be constrained by their relative lack of resources (Carson et al., 1995). Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this Guest Editorial to debate the merits of particular viewpoints on the domain of entrepreneurial marketing, but rather to consider the findings from papers in respect of facets of behaviour. Morris et al. (2002) consider various facets, namely, proactive orientation, opportunity-driven behaviours, customer intensity, innovation-focused behaviours, risk management, resource leveraging behaviours and value creation. Entrepreneurs may be proactive and engage in risk-seeking behaviour when starting a business. However, they may vary in the extent to which they undertake other aspects of entrepreneurial marketing behaviour, such as in the way they seek opportunities, focus on customers' needs, add value to them, leverage resources and innovate. Studies that explain variance in entrepreneurial marketing behaviour and offer counter-intuitive findings contribute to the existing knowledge base. The move to self-employment can carry risk/reward considerations in line with the work of Sarasvathy (2001). Nevertheless, in balancing risk/rewards, readers of this special issue might ponder on a fundamental question related to start-up firms. What is the typical key difference between a new start-up firm and an existing organisation, where the latter tends to feature in much of the marketing literature? The answer is that a new start-up firm is more likely to have no customers! Some of the marketing literature is therefore less applicable to these start-up firms; indeed, engaging in particular mainstream marketing practices may be too expensive and time consuming. Such a consideration is important in respect of how business schools address the needs of members of start-up firms and students considering this entrepreneurial route after or even prior to graduation. Therefore, particular studies involving entrepreneurial marketing have drawn on practitioner-based literature such as customer development, lean start-up and business modelling (