Trading in a Competitive Environment: South‐Asian Restaurants in the UK

Crick, David; Chaudhry, Shiv; Crick, James M.

doi:10.1002/jsc.2069

Cited by 27 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The performance consequences of coopetition activities support the view that businesses (and social network) ties can help market and entrepreneurially-oriented firms perform better by exploiting knowledge that would otherwise be difficult to obtain (Tsai, 2002;Baker and Sinkula, 2009;Boso et al, 2013;Wales, 2016). Performance objectives vary across organisations as some management teams might strive for a sustainable competitive advantage, whilst others might have survival-oriented objectives (Peteraf, 2003;Crick and Crick, 2014;Andersson and Evers, 2015;Crick et al, 2016). The consequences of coopetition support an entrepreneurial marketing perspective since "for an entrepreneurial firm, alliances open up all possible opportunities" and "increase the flexibility and the ability to deal with dynamic and uncertain markets" (Bjerke and Hultman, 2002, pp.…”

Section: Consequences Of Coopetition Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Seminal resource-based theory has evaluated resources (i.e., tangible assets) rather than capabilities (i.e., intangible assets) used to increase organisational performance (Barney, 1991;Priem and Butler, 2001;Hult et al, 2007;Vorhies et al, 2009;Barney et al, 2011). More recent literature has considered how resources and capabilities are different types of assets that have distinct roles in securing competitive advantages (Crick and Crick, 2016a;Crick, Chaudhry and Crick, 2016). This paper takes a generic perspective (i.e., considering the role of resources and capabilities) by incorporating resource-based theory into its conceptual framework as this evaluates how companies need to manage organisation-wide assets to create a competitive advantage (Nason and Wiklund, 2017).…”

Section: Resource-based Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The facets, antecedents and consequences of coopetition

Crick

2018

QMR

Self Cite

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Consequences Of Coopetition Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Resource-based Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The facets, antecedents and consequences of coopetition

Crick

2018

QMR

Self Cite

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Often, as markets become more competitive, organizations must develop more innovative business strategies to generate demand from their customers (Carbonell and Escudero, 2010;Crick, Chaudhry and Crick, 2016;Teece, 2018). If new entrants develop a strong presence within their markets (e.g., become better-known by customers), existing firms might struggle to retain their customers and attract new ones (Porter, 1985).…”

Section: Competitive Business Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moderators affecting the relationship between coopetition and company performance

Crick

2019

JBIM

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the moderating factors that could affect the relationship between coopetition (the interplay between cooperation and competition) and company performance.Design/methodology/approach -Under the relational view and resource-based theory, key articles surrounding coopetition were reviewed. A conceptual framework (with six research propositions) was developed to understand the nature of the relationship between coopetition and company performance.Findings -While the coopetition -company performance relationship has been wellstudied, this link could be moderated by: the competitive business environment, organizational resources and capabilities, and trust between rivals. Further, most authors have explored the linear relationship between coopetition and company performance; however, in this paper, the non-linear (inverted U-shaped) link is also conceptualized, whereby, firms might experience "too little" and "too much" coopetition in their business strategies.Practical implications -Management teams should engage in an "optimal-level" of coopetition by sharing resources and capabilities with rival firms, but not to the extent where they depend on such competitors. If firms rarely collaborate with their competitors, they risk not being able to achieve their performance objectives. Likewise, if businesses engage in excessive degrees of coopetition, there could be tensions between the rival companies involved. Also, practitioners should be aware of the factors that can improve or reduce their performance when they implement coopetition activities. By taking: the competitive business environment, organizational resources and capabilities, and trust between rivals into consideration, the themes of this paper should be used to help managers to maximize company performance (considered in multiple capacities).Originality/value -This paper is used to help scholars and practitioners to understand the factors that could help or hinder the performance outcomes of coopetition activities. By appreciating the moderating roles of: the competitive business environment, organizational resources and capabilities, and trust between rivals, managers are anticipated to provide themselves with scope to alter their coopetition activities to improve their performance. This article ends with a series of managerial implications, alongside some limitations and avenues for future research.

show abstract

“…For example, setting appropriate objectives and implementing strategies based on risks/rewards decisionmaking to meet those objectives (Crick et al, 2016). Indeed, Luthe and Wyss (2014) suggest the need to assess, plan and manage resilience over time, not least in the context of changing environmental, social and economic conditions.…”

Section: Risks/rewards and Self-employmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One topical example involves the levels of immigration occurring in a number of countries (Crick et al, 2016), hence examining differences in the business models employed by lifestyle and growth-oriented firms among owner-managers across particular ethnic cultures and generations of immigration would be interesting. Longitudinal studies offer opportunities for future research assuming data is available over time as facilitating and maintaining access to participants is often difficult.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Research Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%