Knowledge sharing and trust in coopetitive organizations:
the role of communication climate
Mara Huiskes (6115004)
Master's Thesis
Master's programme Communication Science
Thesis adviser: dr. P.G.A. van der Rijt
Abstract
In most organizations, people work together in teams or project groups. In these organizational teams, people often collaborate but are each others competitors at the same time. The behavior of people working together while being each others competitors at the same time is called coopetition.
In coopetition there always a balance between the collective use of shared knowledge to pursue common interests and the use of shared knowledge to make private gains. This continuous tension
between competition and collaboration creates a major challenge for organizations that want to enhance trust and knowledge sharing. The relationships between coopetition, trust and knowledge
sharing was investigated, using 168 members of different organizational teams. Results show that cooperation positively influenced knowledge contributing and this effect was mediated by the amount of trust in team members. This mediated effect was not found for knowledge collecting. Coopetition in this study was measured as an interaction between cooperation and competition. No
significant results were found. The expected three way interaction between cooperation, competition and communication climate was also not supported by the results. Further research is
needed to better understand coopetition and the role of communication climate in more diverse organizations. Also, it is important to measure competition in more detail.
Introduction
The main structures in our society are competitive by nature. Whether it is about the economy, sports and politics: there is always a goal of getting the upper hand. Especially in Western capitalist society, competition is reinforced by the collective belief that striving for self- interest will lead to the ultimate level of value creation (Smith & Nicholson, 1887). Although widely accepted as the base of modern economics, pursuing self- interest does not necessarily impede cooperative
behavior, because prolonged pursuit of collective goals in many cases produces the best individual results. Especially on the team level of organizations this trade off is clearly present. On the one hand people are individual agents maximizing their own interests wherein team members are competitors (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). On the other hand the achievement of individual goals may depend on team members working together, sharing knowledge and combining individual expertise (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). The behavior of people working together while at the same time being each others competitors, is called coopetition (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1996; Bengtsson & Kock, 2000).
While in some functions clear distinction between individual and organizational goals can be drawn, an increasingly dynamic and competitive business environment will make contribution to collective goals less apparent, because creation of innovative solutions is often a result of multiple contributors. The basis of organizational success therefore depends on members sharing knowledge (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Knowledge sharing is important to make innovation happen, but sharing of knowledge is stroking against the competitive nature of individuals. This continuous tension between competition and collaboration among coworkers, creates a challenge for
organizations that want to enhance knowledge sharing (Luo, Slotegraaff & Pan, 2006). In coopetition there is always a balance between the collective use of shared knowledge to pursue common interests and the use of shared knowledge to make private gains. As Nalebuff and
pie and competition when in comes to dividing it up. (…) In other words: business is simultaneously war and peace” (p.4).
Managing team work and team effectiveness in coopetitive teams is a major challenge for organizations (Tsai, 2002). This study focuses on the relationship between coopetition and knowledge sharing in organizational teams and how knowledge sharing can be enhanced through communication. Communication and the communication climate is crucial when creating an effective organization (Redding, 1973), as an open and positive communication climate leads to identification with team members (Schmidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001; Bartels, Pruyn, De Jong & Joustra, 2007), feelings of trust and support (Guzley, 1992) and team members actively participating in discussions which makes them feel like a significant team member (Schmidts et al., 2001). It is argued that the communication climate enhances feelings of trust and support and thus plays an important role in organizations, where competition and cooperation takes place simultaneously. The central research question in this study is:
RQ1: How can communication enhance knowledge sharing in coopetitive organizations? Relevance
This study will address some shortcomings in the existing body of research. First it will address the paradoxical relationship between competition and cooperation. Even though researchers on the concept of coopetition agree that coopetition can not be seen as competition or cooperation, it is surprising most of the studies investigate the concept separately and investigate the concept on one continuum, ranging from cooperation to competition (Baruch & Lin, 2012; Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Ghobadi & D'Ambra, 2012; Luo et al., 2006). Bengtsson and Kock (2014) however suggest to look at the concept on two continua, where an organization is simultaneously on the competition as well as the cooperation continuum. This study takes this suggestion into account, by measuring both competition and cooperation and their combined effect. Another important new aspect in this
study is the additional focus on communication climate and the way communication climate can enhance knowledge sharing in a coopetitive organizational team. Since coopetition has mainly been investigated on one continuum, it is important to extend the research on coopetition in organizations and take into account that both cooperation as well as competition can be high or low at the same time. In addition, there is still little knowledge about the interplay between communication and coopetition, even though theories suggest that the communication climate in organizational teams are crucial for effective team work (Redding, 1973), since an open and supportive communication climate leads to identification with the team and feelings of trust (Schmidts et al, 2001; Bartels et al., 2007).
This study tries to address this challenge by investigating the role that communication climate, that is known to positively influence trust and knowledge sharing in organizations (Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004), plays in teams where members work in coopetition. Better understanding of factors that may facilitate effective knowledge sharing may be beneficial for organizations, since knowledge sharing is known to improve innovation and success (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Tsai, 2002; Wang & Wang, 2012), and it may enhance technological progress and market expansion (Lado, Boyd & Hanlon, 1997). The goal of coopetition within organizations is to create added value and this is why it is important for managers to increase their knowledge about coopetition, so that they can apply the right strategies to improve team performance and, in the end, organizational performance (Lina, Wang, Tsai, & Hsud, 2010; Wang & Wang, 2012). Since people in organizations are often forced to compete and cooperate simultaneously with one another (Luo et al., 2006), it is critical to understand how these conflicting relationships are interrelated and what effects this has. Previous research has indicated that one of the most important factors for successful knowledge sharing in coopetitive organizational teams is trust in co workers (Chow & Chan, 2008; Morris, Kozac & Özer, 2007; Chin, Chan & Lam, 2008; Schepers & Van den Berg, 2007). This study investigates the interaction effects of cooperation, competition and communication climate on trust
in organizations. It specifies the condition under which coopetition (cooperation and competition simultaneously) should be effective.
This study starts with a literature review, which will build up to the research question and conceptual model. The next parts entail the research design and methods, followed by the results of the research. This thesis will end with a discussion chapter, where conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future research are described.
Theoretical background
In this study, people who work in an organizational team are the main subjects of research. A group or team within an organization (e.g. organizational teams) can be defined as: 'a set of individuals who perceive themselves and whom outsiders perceive as constituting an identifiable social aggregate within the organization' (Richter, Scully & West, 2005, p. 178). Members of an
organizational team work together to achieve a common goal. The sharing of knowledge is often the goal, as it adds value to the organization (Chin et al., 2008; Ghobadi & d'Ambra, 2012; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Tsai, 2002; Wang & Wang, 2012) and it is a critical organizational resource that provides competitive advantage in a dynamic economy (Padula & Dagnino, 2007; Wang & Noe, 2010).
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing is defined as a process in which individuals mutually exchange their
knowledge. It implies both the contribution of knowledge as well as the collecting of knowledge (Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Both the contribution of knowledge (bringing of knowledge) as well as the collection of knowledge (getting of knowledge) are active processes. Contributing means sharing what one knows and collecting is consulting others in order to learn what they know (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Knowledge sharing can have important positive outcomes that
both team members as well as organizations can benefit from (Chow & Chan, 2008).
In a meta- analysis performed by Stanne, Johnson and Johnson (1999), it becomes clear that, under most conditions, cooperation leads to optimal team performance. Cooperation suggests that individuals participate in collective actions in order to achieve common interests (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000) and it refers to frequent communication and shared goals among team members (Luo et al., 2006). Empirical research by Ghobadi and d'Ambra (2012) among cross- functional project teams, proofs that individuals are more likely to share their knowledge in a cooperative context, because in these contexts individuals perceive the collective use of shared knowledge as a means to achieve common goals (Ghobadi & d'Ambra, 2012). In addition, another empirical study among employees working in diverse project teams, showed that cooperative behavior leads to increased shared understanding, which is an important requirement for the sharing of knowledge (Schepers & Van den Berg, 2007). It has been acknowledged that employees who experience their work
environment as a cooperative team, will share more knowledge within their team than employees who do not feel this cooperative environment (Schepers & van den Berg, 2007). Previous studies prove that knowledge sharing will increase when people collaborate, because collaboration implies people working together for the common purpose of the organization. Team members will share their information to achieve common goals. Based on this, the first hypothesis of this research is: H1: Cooperation positively influences knowledge sharing
The role of trust
As stated before, the knowledge sharing in organizations is a competitive necessity (Wang & Noe, 2010). It may however be difficult to ensure, since knowledge is generated and stored within employees (Chow & Chan, 2008). Although there are many factors that makes people willing to share their knowledge and that influence the knowledge flows in organizations, one of the most important is trust among coworkers (Luo et al., 2006). It is especially important because knowledge
sharing involves providing others with knowledge with expectations for reciprocity (Wang & Noe, 2010). In inter- organizational view, trust can be defined as the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence (Moorman, Zaltman & Desphande, 1992).
It is generally accepted that trust is the driving force in teams, through which not just individual goals, but also common goals can be achieved (Lusher, Kremer & Robins, 2014; Luo et al., 2006). This is particularly true in the context of social groups such as teams in organizations. In such teams, there is a need for coordination of social actions to achieve team outcomes.
Cooperation within a team, which entails frequent communication and shared goals (Ghobadi & d'Ambra, 2012) reduces conflict, increases team member satisfaction and helps creating a trusting relationship between team members (Chin et al., 2008). A survey conducted by Baruch and Lin (2012) among 160 organizational teams, investigated the relation between coopetition and
knowledge sharing. The results show that cooperation among team members is positively related to trust and that cooperation with led to high perceived trustworthiness of team members. Additionally, survey results of a study by Morris, Kocak and Özer (2007) confirm a strong, positive relationship between a trusting relationship between team members and knowledge sharing.
Existing literature shows substantial proof that trust has a positive influence on the attitude towards knowledge sharing, the intention to share knowledge (Chow & Chan, 2008) and the actual sharing of knowledge (Morris et al., 2007; Chin et al., 2008). Two case studies by Soekijad and Andriessen (2003) focusing on conditions for successful knowledge sharing in teams, even demonstrates that when there were high levels of trust in alliances, knowledge sharing almost happened automatically. Cooperative team perceptions help to create trust, which is a necessary condition for knowledge sharing (Schepers & van den Berg, 2007). Based on this, the next hypothesis states that trust is a mediating variable in the relationship between cooperation and knowledge sharing.
Coopetition and knowledge sharing
Based on existing literature described in previous paragraphs, it is now clear that cooperation between team members is positively related to both trust (Baruch & Lin, 2012; Ghobadi &
d'Ambra, 2012; Chin et al., 2008) and knowledge sharing (Morris et al., 2007; Chow & Chan, 2008; Schepers & Van den Berg, 2007). Competition on the other hand, was found to be negatively related to trust (Stanne et al., 1999). Competition can lead to conflict and a decrease in the perception of trustworthiness of other team members (Baruch & Lin, 2012). Lusher et al. (2014) found in their empirical study among team members of three different teams, that there is less confidence in the team, when competition between members is associated by a lack of trust. Competition and a lack of trust in team members may also impede knowledge sharing, since rivalry leads to people
guarding their knowledge. In many organizations and functions, people have to compete for scarce resources and this makes them reluctant to share (Luo et al., 2006). It seems that fierce competition is deleterious to team performance.
However, the question whether competition is good or bad and should be banned, is the wrong question. The question is not either cooperation or competition, but the point is to examine under which condition cooperation and competition lead to the best results. Clarke-Hill, Li and Davies (2003) carried out a theoretical study on the subject of cooperation and competition in inter- firm relationships and strategic alliances, and support the perspective that the issue is not to choose between cooperation and competition, but to manage the tension between them. They argue that the interaction between cooperation and competition (coopetition) is the best way to describe the complex business reality. There is always a balance between the two concepts, since cooperation can enhance competitive advantage (Padula & Dagnino, 2007; Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1995; Bengtsson and Kock, 2000). Coopetition is the relationship that arises when coworkers cooperate and compete at the same time (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000).
organizations can be rather complicated and difficult to achieve (Clarke- Hill et al., 2003; Luo et al., 2006). Sharing of knowledge, which is a form of cooperation, offers the possibility to increase the knowledge of team members and thus leads to competitive advantage (Luo et al., 2006). Sharing is however a two way street: sharing knowledge can lead to gaining new knowledge as well. This two way street of collaborating with competitors is what Nalebuff and Brandenburger (1996) call coopetition.
The empirical data collecting by Osarenkhoe (2010) however, shows that people do not always engage in either competitive relationships or cooperative relationships with each other. The study highlighted the complementarity- based nature of coopetition and showed that individuals create conditions that enables both the relationships to exist together. In this study it is argued that competitors are simultaneously involved in both cooperative as well as competitive relationships with each other and also benefit from both the relationships at the same time. This means that both cooperation and competition can be highly apparent within one organization and, as suggested by Bengtsson and Kock (2014), coopetition must be investigated on two continua, where an
organization is simultaneously on the competition as well as the cooperation continuum. The concept of coopetition can not be seen as either competition or cooperation (Lado et al., 1997; Luo et al., 2006; Bengtsson & Kock 2000), but it is as Nalebuff and Brandenburger (1996) state war (competing) and peace (cooperating) at the same time. Cooperation and competition are distinct, but interrelated dimensions that can exist simultaneously (Lado et al., 1997). Cooperation in
organizational teams leads to trust, but this relationship is negatively effected as competition among team members grows.
H3: Competition negatively influences the relationship between cooperation and trust
The role of communication climate
negative consequences, such as a lack of trust in each other (Lusher et al., 2014; Stanne et al., 1999) and reluctance to share knowledge (Luo et al., 2006), a balance needs to be created between
cooperation and competition to ensure that coopetition leads to positive results. An open and supportive communication climate may create an environment in which this balance can be created.
Research has shown that one of the main factors to achieve effective team work and knowledge sharing is social interaction (Tsai, 2002). Social interaction provides channels for information and knowledge sharing between coworkers. Knowledge flows may increase through social interaction, because interaction creates more opportunities to share ideas. Questionnaire data collected by Tsai (2002) show that informal relationships and social interaction between coworkers have a significant positive effect on knowledge sharing in organizations. Results also show that the flows of knowledge through social interaction promote trust. So, communication between
coworkers plays a central role in achieving effective knowledge sharing processes and trust. Informal ways of communication between team members may even reduce the potential negative influences of competition (Ghobadi & d'Ambra, 2012). Social interaction however mainly takes place when people feel comfortable to communicate in an open and honest way and not feel
threatened to share their thoughts. To achieve these feelings, an open and supportive communication climate is needed (Ireland, van Auken & Lewis, 1978).
The communication climate is a part of the organizational climate in general (Schmidts et al., 2001) and is crucial when creating an effective organization (Redding, 1973). Communication climate specifically focuses on all the aspects of communication and the sharing of information in an organization (Schmidts et al., 2001). It refers to the quality of the internal environment of an organization (Dennis, 1974) and the perception of employees regarding the quality of mutual relations and communication in an organization (Bartels et al., 2007). There are two types of communication climate defined in the literature: a closed, defensive communication climate and an open, supportive communication climate (Ireland et al., 1978). The communication climate in an
organization influences the way communication takes place and it leads to identification with work groups and teams in particular (Schmidts et al., 2001; Bartels et al., 2007). Important factors of a positive communication climate are openness and trust in communication (Dennis, 1974), the feeling that you can participate and make decisions and feelings of support and being taken
seriously (Guzley, 1992; Redding, 1973). A positive and open communication climate like this will strengthen organizational identification, because it leads to team members actively participating in discussions and thus members will feel like a significant team member (Schmidts et al., 2001). Feelings of openness in communication between team members may lead to feelings of good self- esteem, because members feel that they are taken seriously (Dennis, 1974). On the contrary, in a closed communication climate there is an atmosphere of distrust and employees may feel threatened to communicate and share their information.
Informal relationships are more likely to develop in an open and supportive communication climate (Ireland et al., 1978; De Vries & Van den Hooff, 2006). Organizations with a closed and defensive communication climate are known for their formal mechanisms that are controlled by management and Tsai (2002) found that this has a negative impact on knowledge sharing. Fierce competition can also negatively effect knowledge sharing (Clarke- Hill et al., 2003). In this study it is however proposed that the negative influence of competition within organizational teams can be diminished by an open and supportive communication climate. In a study by De Vries and Van den Hooff (2006) the relationship between team communication, communication climate and
knowledge sharing attitudes was investigated and results show that open communication styles especially engender trust and willingness to share knowledge. An open and supportive
communication climate has a positive, regulating effect on inter personal relationships in the work force, since team members feel free to communicate, through which team members understand each others behavior. Frequent social interaction leads to better understanding and less rivalry. This leads to the hypothesis that simultaneously competition and cooperation within organizational teams can
have a positive influence on trust and knowledge sharing, under the condition of an open communication climate.
H4: The negative influence of competition on the relationship between cooperation and trust is negatively influenced by the degree of openness of the communication climate
In sum, the expectations of this study are that cooperation positively influences trust. This
relationship is diminished when there is also competition in the organization, unless there is an open and supportive communication climate. The possible negative effects of competition on trust may be diminished by the communication climate. Cooperation, competition and communication climate are in interaction with each other and together affect trust. Trust eventually enhances knowledge sharing. Figure one shows the propositions in a conceptual model.
Figure 1: conceptual model
Method
In order to test the hypotheses, an online survey was conducted. Participants and procedure
interested in participating in a study for the University of Amsterdam. They were also asked whether they knew more people who might be interested in participating and to forward the link to the questionnaire within their network. On social media (Facebook and LinkedIn) the test link was spread on the profiles of the researcher and again shared by friends and other people within the network of the researcher. This led to a snowball sample method. Next to this snowball method, one Dutch company agreed to participate in the study. Employees in this organization received an e-mail from their direct supervisor with the request to complete the attached questionnaire.
As soon as people clicked on the link to the online questionnaire, they were redirected to the survey tool. The questionnaire started with a short introduction about the research and it was clearly stated that anonymity was guaranteed. As soon as participants accepted the agreements, the survey started. After the questionnaire was finished, participants were thanked for their participation.
A total of 168 participants completed the questionnaire (n = 168), of which 54 per cent were female. The average age was 33 (SD 13.36), varying from 20 till 73. On average, participants reported working 33.5 hours per week (SD 12.33) varying from 2 to 51 hours. Among the respondents, 88 per cent reported holding a bachelors or master’s degree and 52 per cent of the respondents were working in the public sector. Among the people who worked in the public sector, 20 percent reported working in the sales business.
Material
Besides some questions about demographics, the questionnaire consisted of six sets of questions (see appendix 1). All the questions were measured on a five point Likert scale ranging from (1) totally agree to (5) totally disagree.
Knowledge sharing was measured on a scale constructed by van den Hooff and Huysman (2009). This questionnaire included questions about knowledge collecting (When I need certain knowledge, I ask my colleagues about it) as well as knowledge contributing (I share information
that I required, with my colleagues). Factor analysis on the six items of knowledge sharing showed that there were two factors with an eigenvalue above one. Therefore two scales of three items each were constructed (scale 'knowledge collecting' and scale 'knowledge contributing'). The Cronbach's Alpha shows that both scales were reasonable reliable (α = .72 for knowledge collecting and α = .79 for knowledge contributing)
Cooperation was measured on a five- item cooperation scale created by Wong, Tjosvold and Liu (2009) and included questions about the cooperative atmosphere in organizational teams (Our team members 'swim or sink' together'). Reliability for this scale was also reasonable (α = .77).
Competition was measured on a five- item scale, also created by Wong et al. (2009), and was used to measure the amount of competition among team members (Our team members structure things in ways that favor their own benefit rather than that of other team members). The Cronbach's Alpha shows that the reliability of this scale was good (α = .83).
Communication climate was measured on a scale constructed by Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004) and contained questions about the extent to which the communication climate was open and supportive (When my supervisor tells me something, I trust he/she are open and honest). This scale contained six questions and the Cronbach's Alpha also shows good reliability (α = .80).
Trust eventually was measured on a five- item scale by Lin (2007) and contained questions about trust in team members (I consider my team members as people who(m) can be trusted). The reliability of this scale was also good (α = .89). For eigenvalues and explained variance, see table 1.
Data analysis
The first hypotheses proposing that cooperation is positively related to knowledge sharing, was tested with a linear regression analysis. The independent variable knowledge sharing was split up in two variables, namely knowledge contributing and knowledge collecting. Cooperation was the independent variable. A stepwise regression analysis, as proposed by Baron & Kenny (1986), was
performed to test the possible mediation effect of trust in the relationship between cooperation and knowledge sharing. For the moderating effects of competition and communication climate, and for the three way interaction effect between cooperation, competition and communication climate, also a multiple regression analysis was performed.
Results
Means, standard deviations and the matrix of inter correlations among the study variables are displayed in table 2 (see appendix 1). Results verify that the variables age, gender and the work department of the respondents do not correlate, or very weakly, with the central variables in the study. This means that these demographics were no significant predictors of trust, and therefore did not affect the relationship between cooperation and trust. These variables were not further included in the testing of hypotheses.
Testing of hypotheses
H1: Cooperation positively influences knowledge sharing
In order to test the first hypothesis, the effect of cooperation on knowledge sharing was measured. Since knowledge sharing was divided in two separate variables (e.g. knowledge contributing and knowledge collecting), two linear regression analyzes were performed with first cooperation as independent variable and knowledge contributing as dependent variable and second cooperation as independent variable and knowledge collecting as dependent variable. The regression analysis shows that cooperation has a positive significant effect on both knowledge contributing F(1, 170) = 21,49, p <.001, b* = .34, p <.001, as well as knowledge collecting F(1, 170) = 38,87, p <.001, b* = . 43, p <.001. The regression model can be used to predict the effect of cooperation on knowledge sharing. Knowledge contributing is explained for 11% (R² = .11) by cooperation and knowledge collecting is explained for 19% (R² = .19) by cooperation. These results show that cooperation has a
significant positive effect on knowledge sharing in organizational teams. Hypothesis 1 is supported.
H2: The positive relationship between cooperation and knowledge sharing is mediated by trust To test the second hypothesis, two stepwise regression analyzes were performed. First, the effect of cooperation on knowledge contributing was measured. The regression analysis shows that
cooperation has a positive significant effect on knowledge contributing: F (1,169) = 26.98, p < .001,
b* = .37, b = .21, p < .001. Knowledge contributing is explained for 13% by cooperation (R² = .13). In the next step, trust is added as independent variable. The regression analysis now shows that cooperation no longer has a significant effect on knowledge contributing: F (1,169) = 25.65, p < . 001, b* = .08, b = .05, ns. Cooperation and trust explain 23% of the variance in knowledge
contributing (R² = .23). The effect of cooperation on knowledge contributing thus disappears almost completely when trust is added (See appendix 1, table 3). There seems to be full mediation. To test this, the Sobel's Z- test was performed. The Sobel's Z- test indicates a significant result, which means a mediation effect is found: b = .21, p <.001; b' = .05, ns.; Sobel's Z = 4.29, p <.001. The effect of cooperation on knowledge sharing is fully mediated by trust.
In the second stepwise regression analysis, the effect of cooperation on knowledge
collecting was measured. The regression analysis shows that cooperation has a positive significant effect on knowledge collecting: F (1,169) = 46.34, p < .001, b* = .47, b = .28, p < .001. Knowledge collecting is explained for 21% by cooperation (R² = .21). In the next step, trust is again added as independent variable. The regression analysis now shows that cooperation still has a significant effect on knowledge collecting: F (1,169) = 29.57, p < .001, b* = .27, b = .28, p <.05 Cooperation and trust explain 25% of the variance in knowledge collecting (R² = .25). This means that trust removes some of the effect of cooperation on knowledge collecting, but not all of it (See appendix 1, table 4). There seems to be partial mediation. Again, the Sobel's Z- test was performed, to test if the partial mediation effect was significant. The Sobel's Z- test indicates no significant result: b = .
28, p <.001; b' = .16, p <.05 Sobel's Z = 2.14, ns. Hypothesis two is partially supported.
H3: Competition negatively influences the relationship between cooperation and trust It was expected that the positive relationship between cooperation and trust, as the results of previous regression analysis showed, should be weakened when the variable competition was added. To test whether trust is predicted by the interaction of cooperation and competition, a
moderation analysis was performed. Before testing, the variables cooperation and competition were standardized. Then, a multiple regression analysis was conducted, with cooperation, competition and cooperation x competition as independent variables and trust as dependent variable.
The regression model with trust as the dependent variable and competition and cooperation as dependent variables is significant, F(4, 169) = 53.45, p <.001. The regression model is useful to predict the amount of trust in coworkers. Competition, cooperation and communication climate explain 55% of the variance in trust (R² = .55). The results of the multiple regression analysis showed that cooperation has a significant, positive effect on trust in team members b* = 1.69, p <.001. Competition has a significant, negative correlation with trust, b* = -.88, p < .001. When looking at the moderating effect of competition in the positive relationship between cooperation and trust, results show however that no interaction effect of cooperation and competition was found: b* = .18, ns. This means that there is no moderating effect found from competition on the relationship between cooperation and trust, and thus the third hypothesis is not supported.
H4: The negative influence of competition on the relationship between cooperation and trust is negatively influenced by the degree of openness of the communication climate.
Another multiple regression analysis was performed to test the forth hypothesis. A three way interaction effect between competition, communication climate and cooperation was expected. The regression model with trust as the dependent variable and competition, cooperation and
communication climate as dependent variables is significant, F(3, 169) = 59.48, p <.001. The regression model is useful to predict the amount of trust in coworkers. Competition and cooperation 52% of the variance in trust (R² = .52).
The results of the multiple regression analysis show that there were significant main effects of cooperation, b* = .40, p <.001, competition b* = -.23, p <.01 and communication climate b* =.31, p <.001 on trust in co workers. When looking at the three- way interaction effect of cooperation, competition and communication climate on trust in co workers, there were no significant results: b* =.08, ns. (See appendix 1, table 5). The amount of openness of the
communication climate does not influence the relationship between cooperation, competition and trust. Hypothesis four is not supported.
Discussion
This study looked at the effect of coopetition on knowledge sharing in organizational teams, and also examined the extend to which an open and supporting communication climate and trust in team members play a role in this relationship. An online survey was conducted among 168 participants, recruited via a snowball sample from the social environment of the researcher. To answer the research question: How can communication enhance knowledge sharing in coopetitive organizations? the main findings of the current research are highlighted.
Working in coopetition creates a continuous tension between competition and collaboration among coworkers, which creates a challenge for organizations that want to enhance knowledge sharing (Luo et al., 2006; Tsai, 2002). Hypothesis one, stating that cooperation has a positive influence on the amount of knowledge sharing among team members, was supported by data analysis. This finding is in line with previous research (Stanne et al., 1999; Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Schepers & Van den Berg, 2007, Ghobadi & D'Ambra, 2012; Baruch & Lin, 2012). This means that team members 'sink and swim' together, want each other to succeed and team work goes
smoothly. Cooperation implies that team members share information, regularly inform colleagues about their work and ask colleagues for knowledge.
Previous research also points at a variety of antecedents for knowledge sharing. One very important antecedent was trust in team members (Chin et al., 2008; Bengtsson & Kock, 2010; Lusher et al., 2014). In this study it was proposed that trust is a mediating variable in the relationship between cooperation and knowledge sharing. The second hypothesis was partially adopted. Knowledge sharing was divided in two variables, in line with research by Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004): knowledge contributing (sharing of own knowledge with team members) and knowledge collecting (asking for knowledge from team members). Trust played a mediating role between cooperation and knowledge contributing, which means that trust explains the way cooperation in organizational teams leads to contribution of knowledge. These findings underline the importance of trust according to previous research (Chow & Chan, 2008; Morris et al., 2007; Chin et al., 2008; Schepers & Van den Berg, 2007; Baruch & Lin, 2012).
The importance of trust was less present in the relationship between cooperation and
knowledge collecting. Data analysis shows that there was a partial mediation effect of trust, but this effect was not significant. Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004) were the first to make the
distinction between knowledge contributing and knowledge collecting and the outcomes of this study underline the importance of this distinction. In line with Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004) it becomes clear that the antecedents of both processes are not entirely similar. A possible
explanation could be that knowledge contributors have no assurance that those they are helping will ever return the favor. The norm of reciprocity is important for people who are willing to share knowledge (Wang & Noe, 2010). Knowledge contributors also have to rely on the benevolence of their team members and trust them with their knowledge. The fact that trust did not play an important role when people collect knowledge is somewhat surprising, and contrary to previous studies. Existing research shows that knowledge seekers must rely on the quality of the responses of
team members and that trust is thus an important factor in both knowledge collecting as well as knowledge contributing (Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004; De Vries & Van den Hooff, 2006; Wasko, & Faraj, 2005).
There may be two explanations for not finding a significant effect for cooperation on knowledge collecting via trust. The first possible explanation could be that this effect just does not exist in this population, because there was a lack of variance in the scale of trust. This lack of variance may be the result of the homogeneous group of respondents, since more than one third of the respondents worked for the same organization. A second explanation could be that low levels of trust where not observed and distrust was not assessed separately. Especially the latter is in line with research by Saunders, Dietz and Thornhill (2014), who argue that a low level of trust does not immediately mean distrust. Trust and distrust are separate rather than symmetrical constructs and further research is needed to examine the different antecedents and outcomes of both trust and distrust. It could be that particularly low levels of trust affect knowledge collecting.
The next hypothesis, stating that competition has a negative influence on the relationship between cooperation and trust, was not supported by the results of this study. In line with previous research there was evidence found that competition had a negative effect on trust (Baruch & Lin, 2012) as well as knowledge sharing (Lusher et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2006), but in contrast to the expectation, competition was no moderating variable between cooperation and trust. Another expectation was that coopetition led to positive team outcomes under the condition of an open and supportive communication climate, where team members feel free to communicate with each other. Evidence for this hypothesis was not found. Based on the results there is no interaction found between cooperation, competition and communication climate. However, the direct effects on trust are clearly found, but since the negative effect of competition on trust is not found through an interaction, this is not the way to find a solution. Even when the communication climate is open and supportive, competition is not conducive when you want to establish trust in an organizational team.
Since there was no significant interaction effect found between cooperation and competition on trust in team members, no evidence for coopetition was found either, at least not with trust as dependent variable.
The fact that no evidence for coopetition was found in this studyis not necessarily in contrast to the existing work on coopetition. Respondents reported that they experienced both cooperative as well as competitive behavior within their team. This is evidence for the existence of coopetition in organizational teams. It also became clear that cooperation had positive effects on both trust and knowledge sharing and competition was negatively related to trust and knowledge sharing, which is proof for the paradox that lies on the basis of the concept of coopetition. Results of this study show that coopetition, which was measured as the interaction between cooperation and competition, has no significant positive results on the amount of trust in team members.
There are some possible explanations for the fact that no interaction effect between
cooperation and competition and no three way interaction effect between cooperation, competition and communication climate was found in this population. Firstly, as already mentioned, the lack of variance in trust and communication climate en secondly the way competition was measured. The lack of variance in the scales may be caused by the homogeneous group of respondents. The
respondents in this study reported trusting their team members and working in an organization with an open and supportive communication climate. Further research is needed in more diverse
organizational teams with different work environments.
The second explanations could be that competition was measured in a general way and no distinctions were made between different types of competition. Competition is however a complex concept and it is interesting to investigate the conditions under which competition is constructive and destructive and the different elements of competition. Stanne et al. (1999) already mentioned the importance of distinguishing between different forms of competition. In their meta- analysis they found two types of competition. First zero sum competition, where the winner takes it all. If
one person achieves his goal, all others fail. The second type of competition was appropriate competition, where winning is relatively unimportant and where everyone has a reasonable chance to win. He, Baruch and Lin (2014) also underline the relevance for a distinction in competition in teams, making a distinction between hypercompetition (competing to achieve personal gains and status with little concern for the means and possible harms to others) and development competition (competing for team functioning and development without a primary focus on winning against other team members). In future studies it is interesting to focus on different forms of competition within organizational teams and investigate how these different types of competition influence
cooperation, trust and knowledge sharing.
In this study, the communication climate did not take away the negative effects of competition. One possible explanation for this may be that no negative types of trust and
communication climate were found. As the correlations showed, communication climate does have a positive impact on trust as well as knowledge sharing. Communication climate may have a soothing effect on competition, but in this population respondents reported mainly trusting their team members. This situation is similar to an ice cube that cools a drink: an ice cube can definitely cool a beverage, but you will not find this effect if you put an ice cube in an already cold beverage.
Further research is needed to test the relationships between coopetition, communication climate and trust in different contexts, for example a work environment that is more hostile or where negative forms of competition are present. Based on the results of this study, it becomes clear that managers interested in developing and sustaining trust and knowledge sharing in organizational teams, should focus attention on employees' cooperativeness and avoid competitive behavior among team members. It is perhaps remarkable that something that was expected based on the literature was not found, but it is likely that the people who participated in the study worked in an
organization that is ideal if you want to enhance knowledge sharing. The model in the present study was not able to demonstrate that communication climate is positive for coopetition, but the research
does have yielded more knowledge and confirmed previous research. The answer to the research question is that, if managers want to enhance knowledge sharing and trust in their organization, competition among team members should be diminished and cooperative behavior should be stimulated. An open and supportive communication climate leads to more feelings of trust and more willingness to share knowledge and should be cherished.
References
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., & Joustra, I. (2007). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173-190. doi: 10.1002/job.420
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baruch, Y., & Lin, C. P. (2012). All for one, one for all: Coopetition and virtual team performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 1155-1168. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.01.008
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition – Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 180 – 188. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.02.015
Bengtsson, M. & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks — to cooperate and compete simultaneously, Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 411–426. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-X
Brandenburger, A.M., & Nalebuff, B.J. (1996). Co-opetition. Doubleday.
coopetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems,108(4), 437 – 454. doi:10.1108/026355770810868326
Chow, W.S., & Chan, L.S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management,45, 458 – 465. doi:
10.1016/j.im.2008.06.007
Clarke-Hill, C., Li, H., & Davies, B. (2003), The paradox of co-operation and competition in
strategic alliances: towards a multi-paradigm approach. Management Research News, 6(1), 1 – 20. doi: 10.1108/01409170310783376
Dennis, H.S. (1974). A theoretical and empirical study of managerial communication climate in complex organizations. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Ann Arbor, MI: Xerox University Microfilms
Ghobadi, S., & D’Ambra, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: a coopetitive model. Journal of knowledge management, 16(2), 285 – 301. doi:
10.1108/13673271211218889
Guzley, R. M. (1992). Organizational climate and communication climate predictors of commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379-402.
He, H., Baruch, Y., & Lin, C. P. (2014). Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: The role of within-team competition. Human Relations, 0018726713508797. doi:
10.1177/0018726713508797
Ireland, R.D., Van Auken, P.M., & Lewis, P.V. (1978). An investigation of the relationship between organization climate and communication climate. Journal of Business Communication, 16(1), 3-10.
Lin, C.-P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and antecedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 411-428.
A survey of virtual teams within business organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1598 – 1606. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.007
Loebecke, C., van Fenema, P.C., & Powell, P. (1999). Co- Opetition and knowledge transfer. The data base for Advances in Information Systems, 30(2), 14-25.
Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional “coopetition”: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67-80.
Lusher, D., Kremer, P., & Robins, G. (2014). Cooperative and competitive structures of trust relations in teams. Small group research, 45(1), 3-36. doi: 10.1177/1046496413510362 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Desphande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of
market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314–328.
Morris, M., Kocak, A., & Özer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(1), 35–55.
Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation - A coopetition strategy. Journal Of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3/4), 201-221. doi: 10.1057/dbm.2010.23
Padula, G., & Dagnino, G.B. (2007). Untangling the rise of coopetition: The intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. International studies of management and organization, 37(2), 32-52. doi: 10.2753/IMO0020-8825370202
Redding, W. C. (1973). Communication within the organization. New York: Industrial Communication Council; Lafayette. In: Purdue Research Foundation
Richter, A.W., Scully, J., & West, M.A. (2005). Intergroup conflict and intergroup effectiveness in organizations: Theory and scale development. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 14(2), 177-203.
independent but co-existing? Human Relations, 67(6), 639-665. doi: 10.1177/0018726713500831
Schepers, P., & Van den Berg, P. T. (2007). Social factors of work-environment creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 407-428.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. The Academy of
Management Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
Smith, A., & Nicholson, J. S. (1887). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. T. Nelson and Sons.
Soekijad, M., & Andriessen, E. (2003). Conditions for knowledge sharing in competitive alliances. European management journal, 21(5), 578 – 587. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(03)00107-5 Stanne, M.B., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Does competition enhance or inhibit motor
performance: a meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 125, 133–154.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization science, 13(2), 179-190.
Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 8(6), 117-130. doi: 10.1108/13673270410567675 Van den Hoof, B., & Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and
engineering approaches. Information & Management, 46(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.09.002
Wang, S., & Noe, R.A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115–131.
Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899-8908. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.017
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.
Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Liu, C. (2009). Innovation by teams in Shanghai, China: cooperative goals for group confidence and persistence. British Journal of Management, 20, 238–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00563.x
Appendix 1: Tables
Table 1: Eigenvalues, explained variance and reliability
Eigenvalue Explained variance Cronbach's Alpha
Knowledge collecting 1,10 17,75% α = .72 Knowledge contributing 3,01 50,24% α = .79 Cooperation 2,62 52,43% α = .77 Competition 2,96 59,10% α = .83 Communication climate 2,97 49,54% α = .80 Trust 3,55 71,02% α = .89
Table 2: Correlation matrix, means, standard deviations and correlations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1) Cooperation 3.73 .62 2) Competition 2.54 .82 -.57*** 3) Communication climate 4.00 .57 .66*** -.48*** 4) Knowledge contributing 3.89 .59 .34*** -.20** .41*** 5) Knowledge collecting 4.02 .64 .43*** -.28*** .45*** .48*** 6) Trust 3.91 .66 .69*** -.56*** .64*** .48*** .47*** 7) Work department .80 .40 .01 -.03 -.09 .04 -.08 -.02 8) Gender .54 .50 -.03 .04 -.03 .04 .20 -.02 .05 9) Age 33.40 13.36 -.17* -.06 -.03 .00 -.08 .01 .21 -.11 ***. Correlation is significant at p<0.001 **. Correlation is significant at p<0.01 *. Correlation is significant at p<0.05
Table 3: Regression table to predict knowledge contributing
Model 1 Model 2 b b* b b* Cooperation .21*** .37*** .05 .08 Trust .23*** .43** F 26.98*** 25.56*** R² .13 .23 Constant 7.70*** 6.32*** Note. n = 168
* p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001
Table 4: Regression table to predict knowledge collecting
Model 1 Model 2 b b* b b* Cooperation .28*** .47*** .16 .27 Trust .17*** .29** F 46.34*** 29.57*** R² .21 .25 Constant 6.75*** 5.74*** Note. n = 168 * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001
Table 5: Regression table to predict trust
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
b b* b b* b b* Cooperation 1.21*** .37*** 1.08*** .33*** 1.18*** .36*** Competition -.69** -.21** -.73** -.22** -.81*** -.25*** Communication climate .97*** .30*** 1.02*** .31*** 1.06*** .32*** Cooperation x competition .32 .12 .31 .12 Cooperation x communication climate .06 .02 -.03 -.01 Competition x communication climate -.11 -.04 -.15 -.05 Cooperation x competition x communication climate .15 .10 F 70.70*** 35.80*** 31.02*** R² .56 .57 .57 Adjusted R² .55 .55 .55 Constant 19.52*** 19.61*** 19.61*** Note: n = 168 *p <0.05, **p <0.01, *** p <0.001
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
The next statements are about collaboration in the workplace. Please indicate your level of agreement by placing a tic in the appropriate box
(all 5- point likert scales: Strongly disagree – disagree – neither agree nor disagree – agree – strongly agree)
Cooperation
1. Our team members ‘swim or sink’ together. 2. Our team members want each other to succeed.
3. Our team members seek compatible attitude in terms of teamwork. 4. Our teamwork goes smoothly.
5. When our team members work together, we usually seek a solution that is good for the team. Competition
1. Our team members structure things in ways that favor their own benefit rather than that of other team members.
2. Our team members have a ‘win–lose’ relationship.
3. Our team members like to show that they are superior to each other. 4. Our team members' work attitude is incompatible with each other.
5. Our team members give high priority to the things they want to accomplish and low priority to the things other team members want to accomplish.
Knowledge sharing
1. When I have learned something new, I make sure my colleagues learn about it too 2. I share information that I acquired, with my colleagues
3. I regularly inform my colleagues of what I am working on 4. When I need certain knowledge, I ask my colleagues about it
5. I ask my colleagues about their skills when I want to learn particular skills 6. When a colleague is good at something, I ask him/ her to teach me
Communication climate
1. When my colleagues tell me something, I trust that they are telling the truth 2. When my supervisor tells me something, I trust he/ she are open and honest 3. My direct supervisor is open to the suggestions I give him/ her
4. Here, when you say something, you are taken seriously
5. When the higher management tells us how to do our work, I trust that they are being truthful 6. My colleagues are open to the suggestions I give them
Trust in co-workers
I consider my co-workers as people who(m) 1. Can be trusted Hunt
2. Can be counted on to do what is right 3. Can be counted on to get the job done right 4. Are always faithful
5. I have great confidence in.
Finally, here are some general questions.
0 Male 0 Female
What is your age?
(drop down menu with figures from 18 till 80+)
What is the highest level of education you have completed? 0 High school (Middelbare school)
0 University of applied sciences (Hoger Beroepsonderwijs, HBO) 0 University (Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs, WO)
0 Other
What branch do you currently work in? 0 Public: sales
0 Public: not sales 0 Private
0 Non- profit
How many hours per week do you work?
This is the end of the questionnaire. Thank you very much for your time and participation!
