Partnering based on coopetition in the interorganizational networks of tourism: a comparison between Curitiba and Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.
| Autor | Chim-Miki, Adriana Fumi |
1 Introduction
The establishment of cooperative alliances among participants in a value chain is the relationship defined by Crowley and Karim (1995) as 'partnering'. This cooperative strategy is implemented by organizations to modify and supplement the traditional boundaries that separate organizations in a competitive environment. Thus, 'partnering' can be used to create a cohesive environment, allowing all associate members to interact and to be integrated in the realization of a shared project.
Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996) have proposed the term coopetition as a value network among competitors, complementary firms, suppliers, and clients. Coopetition is summarized by Bengtsson and Kock (2014) as a vertical or horizontal relationship in the creation of a value chain; therefore, competition is not direct. Organizations compete for the general benefits of a transaction and not only for market shares. Over time, research concerning coopetition has evolved, especially about the impact on a firm's performance (Bouncken, Cast, Kraus, & Bogers, 2015). In this sense, Czernek and Czakon (2016) noted that cost savings, resource access and sharing, enhanced value creation and stimulation of innovation are listed among potential gains resulting from this strategy.
In this context, business associations are organizations that bring together firms in order to generate strategic alliances for the sector, acting as a type of governance. They are the hub of several interorganizational coopetition networks, which may combine the best of both extremes--cooperation and competition. At this stage, the approach of Bouncken, Clauf? and Fredrich (2016) indicated that relational governance has a positive relationship with innovation in coopetition alliances, because it favors development of trust, reciprocity, and social embeddedness. Indeed, partnering generates a network with coopetition behavior, because cooperation occurs simultaneously to competition (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014; Luo, 2007).
There is still an inherent paradox underlined by some authors, for instance, Tidstrom (2014), Le Roy and Czakon (2016) and others, regarding the potential tension between creation and capture of value. That is, network participants cooperate to create collective value while they compete for individual benefits (Ritala & Tidstrom, 2014). In this sense, business associations contribute to solve problems resulting from coordination among peers.
In short, coopetition is the base of business strategy in most of present markets' interorganizational networks or strategic alliances. Nevertheless, this has been little studied for the services industry, especially as to tourism (Ritala, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Blomqvist, 2009). However, coopetition is a more realistic behavior of many business relationships and it is an intrinsic feature in the formation of interorganizational networks, since participants look for individual benefits besides collective advantages.
This research considers partnering as defined by organizational literature (Cheng, Li & Love, 2000; Mohr & Spekman, 1994), but we add a viewpoint wherein coopetition (Brandenburger & Nabelluf, 1996) is seen as basic strategy to partnering. This concept better explains the behavior of network participants. According to this baseline, the coopetition inducer's factors contribute to partnering. Thus, the research has twofold objectives. The first was to present a partnering model based on coopetition strategy, with its variables and scales of measuring. The second was to apply the model to the tourism sector of two Brazilian cities, in order to verify context and behavior towards partnering. The paper presents an exploratory analysis based on theoretical review and descriptive statistics. To this end, an entrepreneurial perception survey was used to collect data, applied to 545 tourism entrepreneurs and 49 business associations in Curitiba and Foz do Iguacu, both cities located in Brazil. The sample was stratified as to the official classification adopted by Brazil's National Statistical System to classify economic activities.
Next, the paper was structured as follows: section 2 presents a theoretical background on interorganizational coopetition networks and partnering; methodological aspects are explained in section 3; section 4 presents theoretical results (model and variables/scales) and the empirical results verified in the two Brazilian cities; and, finally, section 5 presents the discussion and conclusions of this research.
2 Interorganizational coopetition networks
The coopetition construct began in a simple way, being simultaneously considered 'competition + cooperation' (Luo, 2007; Von Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003). However, it evolved over time, while research revealed that the traditional boundaries between firms were no longer explained by classical approaches based on competitiveness or cooperation (Zhang & Frazier, 2011). In practice, we observe that firms belonging to a same sector complement each other to establish a market, and compete by sharing this market (Schiavone & Simoni, 2011).
Dagnino and Padula (2002) carried out research on coopetition in the entrepreneurial context and highlighted three significant insights: (a) the interdependence of companies is both a source of economic value creation and a place to divide economic value; (b) interdependence is based on a variable game, with a positive sum that brings mutual benefits, but not equitable necessarily due to competitive pressures; (c) interdependence among companies is derived from partial and convergent interests. In the same line of thought, Le Roy and Czakon (2016) spotlight learning in coopetition relationships, which can be symmetry (win-win relationship) or asymmetry (win-lose relationship). Thus, coopetition is considered the source of superior advantages, but also as a source of risks (Pellegrin-Boucher, Le Roy, & Gurau, 2013).
Research has doubtless revealed positive and negative aspects generated by coopetition, but, indeed, whether good or bad, it is the true foundation behind the partnering of any kind of alliance. Thus, it is necessary to study its formation factors. Scholars indicate several factors as moderating, mediating or inducers of coopetition. The theoretical framework of Zheng and Chen (2003) consider the threat of competition, communication, reciprocity, and interaction in the network as motives to coopete. In a similar way, Ritala (2012) found that market uncertainty, network externalities, and competitive intensity moderate the relationship between coopetition strategy and market performance. Le Roy, Robert and Lasch (2016) included geographical distance. On the other hand, Bouncken et al. (2016) found governance mechanisms to be an inductor of results within coopetition alliances, and the approach of Klimas (2016) has included cultural similarity among partners.
2.1 Partnering: a critical context of cooperation and competition
Leite, Lopes and Silva (2009) underline that the relationship among firms has become complex, so the traditional separation between competitors and partners is harder to establish. In this context, the existence of shared values and social cohesion supports a cooperative network. Following coopetition studies (Baruch & Lin, 2012; Chin, Chan, & Lam, 2008; Della Corte & Sciarelli, 2012; Lin, Wang, Tsai, & Hsu, 2010; Zineldin, 2004) and the theory of interorganizational relationship (Coote, Forrest, & Tam, 2003), the higher the degree of common culture and shared values, the better the tendency to share resources, knowledge and work. This joint effort aims at a global target above individual goals (Coote et al., 2003; Klimas, 2016; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Mutual trust is another usual variable used in coopetition research (Baruch & Lin, 2012; Chin et al., 2008; Della Corte & Sciarelli, 2012) and interorganizational studies (Cheng et al., 2000; Crowley & Karim, 1995; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). Trust in the entrepreneurial context has been studied for years, due to its importance to potentiate work systems that require interdependence, such as teamwork or participatory management (Guillen Parra, Lleo de Nalda, & Marco Perles, 2011). Based on the theoretical review, mutual trust tends to establish a positive relationship towards a coopetitive behavior, since it generates a suitable environment to partnering and cooperation among companies.
In all economic sectors, partnering is observed through the establishment of formal organizations, which are economic and political representatives of entrepreneurs. Scholars indicate that, when associations are efficiently managed, they achieve the resource category and generate higher competitive advantages (Cheng et al., 2000; Della Corte & Aria, 2014). The combination of knowledge, skills, capital resources and cooperative strategy generates a synergy that opens up new opportunities and creates innovative solutions, so this allows better levels of efficiency than individual actions (Bramwell & Lane, 2000). Moreover, when entrepreneurs have awareness of partnering advantages, business associations are more representative. Ganesan (1994) considers that, when entrepreneurs perceive associations' actions as benevolent, a process of trust is established.
The other extreme of coopetition is the competitive context. In this sense, scholars considered the interdependence and complementarity among partners as a favorable condition to coopetition relationships. Interdependence in the interorganizational relationship is studied from the perspectives of business as "human organization" and partnering approaches. From both perspectives, interdependence involves working with others to achieve one's own goals, as well as the goals of an organization or system (Meyer, 1983). Thus, when partners have a higher perception of the degree of complementary within the business community, the environment is more favorable to coopetition. In this...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
