Untangling Coopetitive Dynamics: A Microanalysis of Collaborative and Competitive Tensions in an Ecosystem

Quandt, Carlos Olavo; Castilho, Marcelo Ferreira de

doi:10.1590/1807-7692bar2024230100

Carlos Olavo Quandt

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7514-2765

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná

Rua Imaculada Conceição, n. 1155, Prado Velho, CEP 80215-901, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

carlos.quandt@gmail.com

conceptualization

data curation

formal analysis

investigation

methodology

writing - original draft

writing - review & editing

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7514-2765

Marcelo Ferreira de Castilho

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5036-5751

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná

Rua Imaculada Conceição, n. 1155, Prado Velho, CEP 80215-901, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

castilho.mf@gmail.com

conceptualization

data curation

formal analysis

investigation

methodology

writing - original draft

writing - review & editing

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5036-5751

Corresponding author:
Carlos Olavo Quandt Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná Rua Imaculada Conceição, n. 1155, Prado Velho, CEP 80215-901, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

Editor-in-Chief:

Ivan Lapuente Garrido https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-7961 (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brazil).

Guest Editors:

Jefferson Marlon Monticelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-7090 (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brazil);

Emilene Leite https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2664-8350 (Örebro University School of Business, Sweden);

Adriana Fumi Chim Miki https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7685-2718 (Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Brazil).

Reviewers:

Leander Luiz Klein https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6075-6107 (Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Brazil); and one anonymous reviewer.

Editorial assistants:

Eduarda Anastacio and Simone Rafael (ANPAD, Maringá, Brazil).

Dimension	Definition	Key variables and characteristics	Sources
Coopetition	A strategic and dynamic process blending competition and cooperation, significantly impacting value creation and governance in ecosystems.	Tensions at multiple levels (interorganizational, intra-organizational, individual) affecting knowledge sharing, resource distribution, and psychological challenges; a symbiotic relationship where entities work toward common goals, balanced with private motivations and opportunistic behavior, often exhibiting ambivalence and inherent tensions.	Czakon et al. (2020Czakon, W., Srivastava, M., Leroy, F., & Gnyawali, D. (2020). Coopetition strategies: Critical issues and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(1). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101948 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101948... ); Kilduff et al. (2010Kilduff, G. J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Staw, B. M. (2010). The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 943-969. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533171 https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.5453317... ); Stacey (1996Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.); Tidström (2014Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013... )
Collaboration	A cross-fertilizing interaction implying a mutualistic relationship where parties work symbiotically toward common goals.	Mutual trust and consistent communication; sharing knowledge and aligning different goals; coordination toward a common goal; tensions like flexibility vs. rigidity, autonomy vs. responsibility.	Blomqvist & Levy (2006Blomqvist, K., & Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability-a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016... ); Hoffmann et al. (2018Hoffmann, W., Lavie, D., Reuer, J., & Shipilov, Al. (2018). The interplay of competition and co-operation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3033-3052. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2965 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2965... ); Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh (2018Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2018). Roots of collaboration: nature-inspired solutions for collaborative networks. IEEE Access, 6, 30829-30843. https://10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2845119 https://10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2845119... ); Russell & Smorodinskaya (2018Russell, M. G., & Smorodinskaya, N. V. (2018). Leveraging complexity for ecosystemic innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 114-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.... ); Stacey (1996Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.)
Competition	A paradigm where one entity’s gain is another’s loss, characterized by self-interest and the pursuit of dominance.	The pursuit of distinct market domains determining the strategic positioning among ecosystem participants; articulating choices guided by defense or protection; achieving or maintaining dominance; acquiring resources and constraining opponents; evolutionary dynamics between individual self-interest and altruism.	Austen (2018Austen, A. (2018). In search of network sustainability: A multilevel perspective on the paradox of co-operation and competition in networks. Sustainability, 10(7), 2466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072466 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072466... ); Deutsch (1949Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human relations, 2(2), 129-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726749002002... ); Ferrier et al. (1999Ferrier, W. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1999). The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 372-388. https://doi.org/10.5465/257009 https://doi.org/10.5465/257009... ); Garcia et al. (2013Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Schiff, T. M. (2013). The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 634-650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504114 https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504114... ); Kilduff (2019Kilduff, G. J. (2019). Interfirm relational rivalry: Implications for competitive strategy. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 775-799. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0257 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0257... ); Scherer & Ross (1990Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Houghton Mifflin.); Wilson (1997Wilson, D. S. (1997). Altruism and organism: Disentangling the themes of multilevel selection theory. The American Naturalist, 150(S1), s122-S134. http://doi.org/10.1086/286053 http://doi.org/10.1086/286053... )
Value Creation	Benefits generated from interactions among ecosystem participants, influenced by both collective interests and private motivations.	Co-dependence in value arising from interactions; multilevel paradoxes among participants nurtured by benefits through interdependent and complex interactions among ecosystem participants.	Adner & Kapoor (2010Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306-333. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821... ); Jarzabkowski & Bednarek (2018Jarzabkowski, P., & Bednarek, R. (2018). Toward a social practice theory of relational competing. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 794-829. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2724 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2724... ); Keller et al. (2017Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Yan, J. (2017). Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 539-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685590 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685590... ); Osterwalder et al. (2005Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 1. http://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01601 http://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01601... ); Pushpananthan & Elmquist (2022Pushpananthan, G., & Elmquist, M. (2022). Joining forces to create value: The emergence of an innovation ecosystem. Technovation, 115, 102453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102453 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2... ); Thomas & Autio (2019Thomas, L., & Autio, E. (2019). Innovation ecosystems. Innovation Ecosystems. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3476925 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3476925... ); Zahra & Nambisan (2012Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3), 219-229. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.12.004 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.12.... )

Method	Description	Role in Triangulation
In-depth Interviews	Crafted to provoke reflective responses around challenges and dynamics of the research subject.	Provided subjective insights and personal perspectives of ecosystem participants, revealing underlying dynamics.
Documentary Research	Analysis of documents provided by the Delta ecosystem’s acting president, including regulatory and financial documents, as well as public resources like websites and publications.	Offered objective, formal perspectives of the ecosystem, complementing personal narratives from interviews.
SenseMaker Tool	Participants shared stories, which were then analyzed in dyads and triads to identify patterns of meaning.	Facilitated collective reflection and co-production of interpretations, connecting individual experiences with shared narratives.

Pattern	Description	Associated Tension
A	An ecosystem created and reproduced around an ideological, philosophical, or utopian substrate, where participants collaborate and compete in cycles of creation and dissolution, opening up to and resisting the new.	Identity building and individual drive
B	Ecosystems structures aimed at both change and permanence, in the reach and expansion of opportunities, and in the preservation of interests and demarcation of territories.	‘Islands’ and ‘archipelagos’
C	Mechanisms of confrontation and cultivation, which reveal both a collision of interests, more or less veiled, and the nurturing of community ties, to a greater or lesser degree.	Identity building and individual drive
D	A structure that legitimizes and reproduces asymmetries among participants, whose effect is enhanced among similar entities in search of differentiation.	Performance asymmetries
E	Participants reinforce their strength in small groups as the confrontation is veiled in the larger group.	Performance asymmetries
F	The densification in small groups manifests itself in increasingly higher levels of cohesion and affinity as participants self-confirm at new levels of resilience.	‘Islands’ and ‘archipelagos’
G	Structures to mitigate confrontations and absorb disturbances promote both the distancing of participants and the resignation of others, with the effect being seen in cordial action.	Identity building and individual drive

[1] Corresponding author:
Carlos Olavo Quandt Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná Rua Imaculada Conceição, n. 1155, Prado Velho, CEP 80215-901, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

Brasil

Brasil

Untangling Coopetitive Dynamics: A Microanalysis of Collaborative and Competitive Tensions in an Ecosystem

ABSTRACT

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions: