利用主导极:全行业环保联盟的拥护者如何驾驭合作悖论

IF 9.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Management Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1177/01492063241252762
Natalie Slawinski, Wendy K. Smith, Connie A. Van der Byl
{"title":"利用主导极:全行业环保联盟的拥护者如何驾驭合作悖论","authors":"Natalie Slawinski, Wendy K. Smith, Connie A. Van der Byl","doi":"10.1177/01492063241252762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Companies increasingly collaborate with competitors to innovate, minimize risks, and address sustainability crises. However, these alliances often falter or fail due to challenges arising from coopetition paradoxes—contradictory yet interdependent tensions between competition and cooperation. Extant research predominantly focuses on addressing these paradoxes through seeking a stable balance between competition and cooperation; however, we lack in-depth processual understandings of how to navigate these paradoxes as they shift over time. To address this gap in the literature, we analyze longitudinal data over the 3 years it took to establish Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA), the unlikely alliance across 13 competitive Canadian oil sands companies to improve their industry’s environmental performance. We noted the role of competition, which we label as the dominant pole—the more powerful of two paradoxical poles—and identify leveraging the dominant pole as a core mechanism for navigating intensifying coopetition paradoxes. Rather than diminishing the dominant competition pole, alliance champions leveraged competition to enable cooperation aided by a paradox mindset. These findings reorient coopetition scholarship away from seeking stability between the two forces, toward a processual understanding of how to navigate the shifting coopetition paradoxes in alliances over time.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"135 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leveraging the Dominant Pole: How Champions of an Industry-Wide Environmental Alliance Navigate Coopetition Paradoxes\",\"authors\":\"Natalie Slawinski, Wendy K. Smith, Connie A. Van der Byl\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01492063241252762\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Companies increasingly collaborate with competitors to innovate, minimize risks, and address sustainability crises. However, these alliances often falter or fail due to challenges arising from coopetition paradoxes—contradictory yet interdependent tensions between competition and cooperation. Extant research predominantly focuses on addressing these paradoxes through seeking a stable balance between competition and cooperation; however, we lack in-depth processual understandings of how to navigate these paradoxes as they shift over time. To address this gap in the literature, we analyze longitudinal data over the 3 years it took to establish Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA), the unlikely alliance across 13 competitive Canadian oil sands companies to improve their industry’s environmental performance. We noted the role of competition, which we label as the dominant pole—the more powerful of two paradoxical poles—and identify leveraging the dominant pole as a core mechanism for navigating intensifying coopetition paradoxes. Rather than diminishing the dominant competition pole, alliance champions leveraged competition to enable cooperation aided by a paradox mindset. These findings reorient coopetition scholarship away from seeking stability between the two forces, toward a processual understanding of how to navigate the shifting coopetition paradoxes in alliances over time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management\",\"volume\":\"135 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241252762\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241252762","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公司越来越多地与竞争对手合作,共同创新、降低风险和应对可持续发展危机。然而,由于合作竞争悖论--竞争与合作之间相互矛盾但又相互依存的紧张关系--带来的挑战,这些联盟往往会动摇或失败。现有研究主要侧重于通过寻求竞争与合作之间的稳定平衡来解决这些悖论;然而,我们缺乏对如何在这些悖论随时间变化的过程中驾驭它们的深入理解。为了弥补文献中的这一空白,我们分析了加拿大油砂创新联盟(COSIA)成立三年来的纵向数据,该联盟是加拿大 13 家竞争激烈的油砂公司为改善行业环境绩效而结成的一个不太可能的联盟。我们注意到竞争的作用,并将其称为主导极--两个矛盾极中更强大的一极--并将利用主导极作为驾驭不断加剧的合作竞争矛盾的核心机制。联盟的拥护者们非但没有削弱竞争的主导极,反而在悖论思维的帮助下利用竞争促成了合作。这些发现调整了合作竞争研究的方向,使其从寻求两种力量之间的稳定转向对如何驾驭联盟中不断变化的合作竞争悖论的过程性理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Leveraging the Dominant Pole: How Champions of an Industry-Wide Environmental Alliance Navigate Coopetition Paradoxes
Companies increasingly collaborate with competitors to innovate, minimize risks, and address sustainability crises. However, these alliances often falter or fail due to challenges arising from coopetition paradoxes—contradictory yet interdependent tensions between competition and cooperation. Extant research predominantly focuses on addressing these paradoxes through seeking a stable balance between competition and cooperation; however, we lack in-depth processual understandings of how to navigate these paradoxes as they shift over time. To address this gap in the literature, we analyze longitudinal data over the 3 years it took to establish Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA), the unlikely alliance across 13 competitive Canadian oil sands companies to improve their industry’s environmental performance. We noted the role of competition, which we label as the dominant pole—the more powerful of two paradoxical poles—and identify leveraging the dominant pole as a core mechanism for navigating intensifying coopetition paradoxes. Rather than diminishing the dominant competition pole, alliance champions leveraged competition to enable cooperation aided by a paradox mindset. These findings reorient coopetition scholarship away from seeking stability between the two forces, toward a processual understanding of how to navigate the shifting coopetition paradoxes in alliances over time.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.40
自引率
5.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.
期刊最新文献
The Journal of Management’s 50th Reflections 2005-2023 Grammatical Redundancy in Scales: Using the “ConGRe” Process to Create Better Measures Industry Offshoring and Firm Internationalization: Complementarities in External Learning Dare to Fight? How Activist Hedge Funds’ Hostile Tactics Influence Target Firm Resistance We Are (Not) on the Same Team: Understanding Asian Americans’ Unique Navigation of Workplace Discrimination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1