Competing while cooperating with the same others: The consequences of conflicting demands in co-opetition.

Abstract

Numerous studies comparing the effects of competition and cooperation demonstrated that competition is detrimental on the social level. However, instead of purely competing, many social contexts require competing while cooperating with the same social target. The current work examined the consequences of such "co-opetition" situations between individuals. Because having to compete and to cooperate with the same social target constitutes conflicting demands, co-opetition should lead to more flexibility, such as (a) less rigid transfer effects of competitive behavior and (b) less rigidity/more flexibility in general. Supporting these predictions, Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that co-opetition did not elicit competitive behavior in a subsequent task (here: enhanced deceiving of uninvolved others). Study 2 showed that adding conflicting demands (independent of social interdependence) to competition likewise elicits less competitive transfer than competition without such conflicting demands. Beyond that, co-opetition reduced rigid response tendencies during a classification task in Studies 3a and 3b and enhanced flexibility during brainstorming in Study 4, compared with other forms of interdependence. Together, these results suggest that co-opetition leads to more flexible behavior when individuals have to reconcile conflicting demands. Implications for research on social priming, interdependence and competition in everyday life are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Steel sharpens steel: A review of multilevel competition and competitiveness in organizations

“…Throughout most of life, goal interdependence is not positive, negative, or null but a collection of dependencies of all three types arranged in a dynamic goal hierarchy. Previous researchers define interpersonal coopetition as “a situation in which two individuals or parties need to invest effort into a joint task (i.e., cooperation) while ultimately the success of one is detrimental to the success of the other (i.e., competition)” (Landkammer & Sassenberg, , p. 1671). Tsai () investigated intergroup coopetition and found that knowledge sharing increased as result of cooperation between groups who interacted informally but decreased as a result of competition between groups within the formal organizational hierarchy.…”

The conflict mindset: How internal conflicts affect self‐regulation

“…Better performance on the RAT was also shown following the activation of the counterfactual (mental simulation) mindset—the simultaneous accessibility of both the actual outcome and the possibility of a converse counterfactual outcome (Galinsky & Moskowitz, ; Galinsky, Moskowitz, & Skurnik, ; Kray, Galinsky, & Wong, ). Using another measure of creativity—the generation of different ideas—Landkammer and Sassenberg () have found that priming participants with both cooperation and competition goals (which they termed “co‐opetition”) led to the generation of more differentiated ideas compared to priming participants with a single goal.…”

“…"Co-opetition" mindset (Landkammer & Sassenberg, 2016) Participants are primed with both cooperation and competition goals.…”

Knowledge Exchange as a Motivated Social Process

“…Landkammer and Sassenberg (2016) argued that experiencing co-opetition activates mixed demands ("cooperate and compete") that are often considered contradictory. As a consequence, schematic competitive thinking cannot be applied and, thus, cannot guide behavior.…”