THE SOURCES AND MANAGEMENT OF TENSIONS IN HORIZONTAL INTER- ORGANIZATIONAL COOPETITION IN A SME CONTEXT

(1)

THE SOURCES AND MANAGEMENT OF TENSIONS IN HORIZONTAL

INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL COOPETITION IN A SME CONTEXT

K.A. (KEES) NOORDMANS

2201747

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Msc. BA SB&E

Billitonstraat 8a

9715 ES Groningen

Tel: 0652267046

(2)

ABSTRACT

The goal of this study is to investigate the process of tensions, the management of tensions, and the outcomes of this managing of tensions in a horizontal inter-organizational coopetition. Coopetition is known as collaboration between competing firms. Inherently to the two contradicting logics of interaction (i.e. competing and cooperating) is the forthcoming of tensions. Tensions can be described as a situation of incompatible behavior, goals, or activities between at least two parties. Tensions are more instable for collaborative relationships between competitors than that for tensions that arise in collaborative relationships between non-competitors. There is not much attention paid to the sources and management of tensions in a horizontal coopetitive relationship. Research shows that the importance of coopetition seems to be even greater for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This is a descriptive and exploratory study on the sources and management of tensions in a coopetitive relationship in a SME context.

The study explores the process of tensions in a sample of six firms that together provide thirteen incidents of tensions. This study uses semi-structured interviews accompanied by the Critical Incident Technique to gather data. Data from these interviews showed that the reasons SMEs engage in a coopetitive relationship is because of the possibility to access resources, access information, and increase its competitiveness. Trust and commitment are important features in the coopetitive

relationship. Together with transparency, professionality, and agreements these features constitute the building blocks for a fruitful horizontal coopetition. Tensions are inherent to the relationship and therefore management of tensions is considered important. This study finds that for a strong, or moderate competitive force present in the relationship it is useful to engage in an active and involved management style. A weak competitive force is resulting in a cooperative relationship with less harmful tensions. A more passive management style can be appropriate

The building blocks for a fruitful horizontal relationship are features, which a manager should strive for in the coopetitive relationship. A future comparative study would add to this study.

Furthermore, future research can be focused on the process of trust in the coopetitive relationship. Quantitative research can also be useful in the significance of involved management styles on the solving of tensions.

Key words: Horizontal coopetition, inter-organizational tension, competitive dynamism,

management of tensions, outcomes of tensions, game theory

Supervisor dr. ir. J. Kraaijenbrink

(3)

PREFACE

The paper that lies before you is my last step towards graduating. It was a very interesting topic with great complexity. There are many factors that play a role in a coopetitive relationship. Although this made it not easy to study this complex relationship, it also made it that more interesting. I hope that this research contributes to the development of the theory on the subject of horizontal

inter-organizational coopetition.

I’d like to thank the respondents that were willing to invest time in me. The respondents I interviewed were very involved in a coopetitive relationship and they liked to subject as well. They showed a willingness to help and this was good to experience. So, thanks to all the respondents for their cooperation and enthusiasm.

Further I would like to thank Dr. Ir. J. Kraaijenbrink for his guidance and feedback during the process. He provided me with constructive feedback with room for me to give my own twist to it.

This research has been an instructive experience for me and I hope you enjoy reading it!

(4)

TABLE OF FIGURES

Table 1: Concepts, Questions, Purpose, Authors regarding interview scheme ... 29

Table 2: Sample of the study ... 34

Table 3: Reasons to engage in a coopetitive relationship ... 35

Table 4: Comparison respondent-competitor; Characteristics of coopetitive relationship ... 39

Table 5: Outcomes of management styles ... 43

Table 6: Competitive dynamism and outcomes ... 51

Table 7: Competitive force, management styles, and outcomes ... 51

Table 8: Reasons for tension, management styles, and outcomes ... 52

Figure 1: Theoretical framework ... 26

(7)

1. INTRODUCTION

Business is a high-stakes game. The essence of business success lies in making sure you play the right game (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1995). There is an increasing interest in the ‘game’ of the phenomenon coopetition. Coopetition is known as collaboration between competing firms (Ritala, 2012). It is the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition between firms (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). A common form of coopetition is knowledge sharing among competitors (Tsai, 2002). Coopetition helps to increase technological diversity and help combining complementary resources of rival firms in developing new technologies and products (Quintana-García & Benavides-Velasco, 2004). Coopetition can be a horizontal relationship as well as a vertical relationship between firms. Whereas vertical coopetition (e.g. supplier-buyer relationship) is characterized by mutual dependence and mutual interest to interact, horizontal coopetition (e.g. competitors) is characterized by conflict as interests of the involved parties are difficult to be fulfilled simultaneously (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). Carayannis and Alexander (1999) show that coopetition is particularly important in industries that are knowledge-intensive, dynamic and complex. Research shows that the importance of coopetition seems to be even greater for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This is because technology is increasingly more diversified and complex, therefore SMEs are faced with the challenges of rising R&D costs, high risk, and uncertainty in technological development (BarNir & Smith, 2002). Morris et al. (2007) suggest that SMEs in an industry need to collaborate with competitors so that they can profit from economies of scale, mitigate risk, and leverage resources together. Coopetition is complex of nature as it consists of two diametrically different logics of interaction. On one hand, actors are involved in a relationship characterized by hostility due to conflicting interests (i.e. competition) and on the other hand, actors are involved in a relationship characterized by friendliness due to common interests (i.e. collaboration) (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000).

(8)

with coopetition (Fernandez et al., 2014). There are a few researchers that indicate that there are four sources of tension; Role, power and dependence, knowledge, and opportunism tensions (Tidström, 2014). There are five different management styles that are argued to be used when dealing with tension. Collaboration, competition, compromising, accommodation, and avoidance are the

management styles (Tidström, 2014). Whereas one management style is focused on creating a win-win situation (e.g. collaboration), the other style is focused on achieving a win-lose situation (e.g.

competition). There is also a style that avoids the tension; this would be because of the costs that are exceeding the benefits when addressing the tension (e.g. avoidance). Aforementioned, less attention is paid to the sources and management of tensions associated to horizontal inter-organizational

coopetition. To fill in this gap, this study answers the following research question.

How can SMEs effectively manage inter-organizational tensions in inter-organizational horizontal coopetitive relationships?

To help address the research question, first the sources of inter-organizational tensions are identified. To address the research question an in-depth case study is applied. This helps to create a deeper understanding of the management of inter-organizational tensions and can contribute by new ways of managing tensions adopted by SMEs. This study contributes to the coopetition literature by

developing insights to understand the nature and sources of tensions in coopetition, and more

importantly how to manage these tensions to create an advantageous relationship. The literature lacks in explaining how to manage inter-organizational tensions (Fernandez et al., 2014).The importance of managing tension is critical in coopetitive relationships as reducing tension by for instance weaken the competing force could hinder the realization of gains (Bengtsson, Kock, 2000; Gnyawali et al., 2008).

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The following section will start with discussing the concept of coopetition. After that, the theoretical streams that explain inter-organizational coopetition and tensions will be discussed in the context of small- and medium sized enterprises. These theoretical streams form the foundation of the theoretical framework that is developed and discussed later on. Subsequently a more in-depth discussion about inter-organizational tensions will follow. Different forms of tensions will be discussed, underlying issues that play a role in these tensions, the management of inter-organizational firms, and the possible outcomes of tensions are thereafter discussed.

2.1. Coopetition

(9)

cooperative and competitive interactions, regardless of whether their relationship is vertical or horizontal (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014). Coopetition is the pursuit to combine the benefits of

cooperative and competitive behaviors to produce greater results than pure collaborative agreements (Fernandez et al., 2014). Coopetitive relationships are complex as they consist of two diametrically different logics of interaction. On one hand a cooperative interaction that is characterized by friendliness due to the common interests and on the other hand a competitive interaction that is characterized by hostility due to the conflicting interests. In this study the focus lies on horizontal coopetitive relationships as they are harder to grasp than vertical coopetitive relationships and more research is needed. Horizontal coopetitive relationships are collaborating relationships with direct competitors. Horizontal inter-organizational coopetition is characterized by informality and invisibility (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). Horizontal coopetition moreover is expected to be more conflictive in nature than vertical coopetition, as the interests of the competitors often cannot be fulfilled

simultaneously. Vertical coopetition is characterized by mutual dependence and a shared interest to interact (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). As horizontal coopetition leads to more conflicting relationships, tensions between firms are expected to more present in these relationships. Coopetition entails multiple opposing elements and dualities (Clarke-Hill et al., 2003) and tensions arise from the simultaneous pursuit of the two opposing dimensions of cooperation and competition (Fernandez et al., 2014). Tensions are more complex and instable within coopetitive relationships than tensions in relationships without competitive forces (Fernandez et al., 2014). Furthermore, Clarke-Hill et al. (2003) state that high levels of cooperative and competitive forces lead to more complex and intense tensions. Tension between firms appears to be a threat for companies as tensions could lead to failure of the project (Fernandez et al., 2014). Although the coopetitive relationship is expected to lead to conflicting interests, there are also researchers that argue that a coopetitive relationship can lead to beneficial results. Positive outcomes of conflict can include an expanded understanding of the issues present in the working process. Furthermore, conflicts can lead to a problem-solving environment and can lead to creative searches for alternative solutions for existing problems (Bradford et al., 2004). Interestingly, it is argued that when the competitive force is left out of the relationship the benefits of the relationship are weakened or not even present (Fernandez et al, 2014). This is argued to be the case, because competitors encounter similar challenges, and possess resources and capabilities that are relevant for the specific industry (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). Because tensions are inherent to a

coopetitive relationship it is important to focus on the management of tensions and effectively manage these tensions so that the positive consequences of conflicts can be realized (Bradford et al., 2004; Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Gnyawali et al. 2008). In the following section, the theoretical streams that explain horizontal coopetition and its tensions are discussed in the context of SMEs.

(10)

The following theoretical streams provide the conceptual basis to discuss coopetition; Game theory, alliance theory, transaction cost theory, agency theory, stewardship theory, and resource-based view. Game theory is the leading theoretical stream in the coopetitive relationship; therefore this will be discussed first. As alliance theory and the resource-based view explain the reasons why a firm will engage in a coopetitive relationship these stream will be discussed subsequently. After that transaction cost theory will add to the discussed streams the possibility of opportunistic behavior in a coopetitive relationship. This theory explains the expectation that in such a relationship tensions are expected to be present in such a relationship. Following the transaction cost theory, the agency theory and stewardship theory contribute by an explanation regarding the management of tensions. Interesting in this debate is the difference in opinion regarding the ‘model of man’.

2.2.1. Game theory

In the light of a coopetitive relationship, game theory plays an important role, because the relationship is characterized by two contradicting logics. In other words, on one hand the involved firms want to cooperate and on the other hand the involved firms are also competitors of each other (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). The logic in game theory in a coopetitive perspective, and proposed by the frontrunners in the field of coopetition, Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1995), is that the firms collaborate in order to increase the size of the business pie and compete to divide it up. They continue with stating the

importance of the perspective taken by the involved firms. In other words, it is about making the choice between focusing on a firm’s own position and focusing on the other firm. The game theory explicates that the firms have to focus on the other firm instead of their own position. It is important to put yourself in the shoes of the other firm to look forward and reason backward (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1995). Firms should create a game that is beneficial for both of the companies. The firms benefit from the mutual ability to increase the total value they can subsequently individually can capture (Ritala, 2012). Recognizing the dynamics of such a relationship involves adapting a new mindset when engaging in a coopetition (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1995). A win-win approach is argued to be the most effective for creating a greater pie and in turn leads to obtaining a larger slice (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). This is related to the management of tensions, as game theory explains that win-lose situations can lead to tensions. The managing of tensions should be pointed at collaboration and achieving a win-win situation (Gnyawali & Park, 2009).

(11)

added value of the relationship. Third, rules are of importance in the coopetition. Rules give structure to the game, however in business there is no universal set of rules. Rules can be used in the advantage of one firm or the other. Fourth, tactics of the players are considered important in the coopetition. This is about how the players play the game and is also related to the competitive dynamism of the

relationship. This also deals with ethical issues and the opportunism existent in the relationship. Finally, the scope of the relationship is considered important. This is because it determines the boundaries of the game (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1995). This all determine the game where the players are in and determine and characterizes the relationship.

2.2.2. Alliance theory

Following the alliance theory, alliance oriented firms are firms that aim to engage in alliances with other firms. It allows firms to manage inter-organizational relationships and provides the firm with the possibility to absorb, integrate, and leverage resources and knowledge acquired through the

coopetitive relationship with another firm (Bouncken & Fredrich, 2016). It is argued that firms with an alliance orientation will always look for new opportunities for new partnerships and tries to create routines in the management of relationships with partners (Bouncken & Fredrich, 2016). The alliance theory also explains that firms with an alliance orientation experience positive performance effects, because of the tendency to engage in such partnerships the firm has more access to information and resources. The access to information and resources can help the firm increase its performance

(Bouncken & Fredrich, 2016). It is also closely related to the network theory, because when engaging in an alliance (i.e. network) with a competitor the firm is able to learn from the competitor and the firm can access the resources of the competitive partner (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). Moreover, the access to external resources is argued to be critical in the shaping of a firm’s competitive behavior (Gnyawali & Park, 2009).

2.2.3. Resource based view

(12)

access otherwise unavailable resources. These resources subsequently can be leveraged into

competitive advantages and values to the firm (Das & Teng, 2000). Together with Kogut (1988), Das and Teng (2000) state that firms want to engage in coopetition either to acquire the other firm’s know-how and resources or because of benefiting more from its own know-know-how with the use of additional resources of the other firm. Hence, a coopetition can be used to pool technological know-how and resources from different firms to attain a greater competitive advantage. Or it can be used to maintain the firm’s resources and add external resources to improve or benefit more from the process (Das & Teng, 2000).

In addition to this, and also interestingly related to the management of tensions, collaboration (i.e. a management style striving for a win-win situation) regarding the product offerings of the involved firms allows the coopetition to gain added value by improving their basis for their offerings (Ritala, 2012). This means that the quality of the offering is improved by collaborating and together the firms develop improvements to the offerings. Collaboration with a competitor is typically expected to increase the risk of unwanted knowledge spill-over, but it rather increases the possibility to gain added value of such a relationship (von Hippel, 1987). Also in the light of gaining added value, the firms are willing to commit to the relationship. This is because the risks to create a new market on your own is difficult and costly, therefore engaging in a coopetitive relationship with a competitor mitigates the risks as the shared resources are expected to be compatible (Ritala, 2012). Another motivation to engage in a coopetitive relationship is the willingness to increase the efficiency of the usage of resources, in serving their existing market share. Competitors share resources to mitigate the risks of resources and to gain efficiency benefits (Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Ritala, 2012). A different motivation is to engage in a coopetition to affect the competitive dynamism in the market. In other words, the firm wants to control their competitors and defend their competitive position by operating closely to the competitor (Das & Teng, 2000; Ritala, 2012). These motives can play a role in the emerging of tensions between firms and also for the management of these tensions. This is the case, because when the motives are aligned the tensions are less likely to emerge. In contrast, when the motives are differing and for instance a firm is motivated to control the competitive dynamism of the market, tensions are more likely to emerge. With regard to the management of tensions it can be necessary to align motives or explicate the motives to decrease the tensions.

(13)

coopetitive relationship can facilitate the access to new markets, new resources, and is argued to be able to facilitate survival for the SME (Merrifield, 2007). In short, SMEs are engaging in collaboration with a competitor to increase economies of scale, mitigate risks, and leverage resources (Morris et al., 2007). Together with such motives, there are argued to be three critical issues (Gnyawali & Park, 2009) regarding the importance of coopetition for SMEs. First of all, taken the fact that competitors face the same challenges in the market and also act in the same market, they are argued to have similar and relevant resources. Second, a SME is often forced to deal with the liability of smallness, therefore pairing up with a competitor and similar firm helps to overcome the resource constraint of both parties and gives them an opportunity to compete with the larger firms. Finally, SMEs with similar products and technologies are argued to be able to create common technologies and increase uniformity for the two parties (Gnyawali & Park, 2009).

2.2.4. Transaction cost theory

When dealing with a coopetition and especially tensions within such a relationship, transaction cost theory is an important theoretical basis to consider. Transaction cost theory explains that firms use coopetition as a form of governance that share the same attributes of markets and internal

organizations, with the goal to diminish the risks of both the firms (Park & Russo, 1996). From the approach of the transaction cost economics, coopetitive relationships are designed to meet the firm’s goals as well as the goals of the coopetition (Quintana & Benavides, 2004). Such a relationship will be successful when the opportunity costs are considered lower than the added value of the collective outcome for both the parties. With this in mind, the distribution of the added value has to be

considered fair for both parties (Quintana & Benavides, 2004). Transaction cost economics warn for opportunistic behavior that results in a firm’s focus on the self-interest instead of the focus on the mutual interest of both the parties. This warning is the main concern for transaction cost economics as it is argued that the relationship is predicted to have a higher failure rate when the relationship is with direct competitors. Direct competitors are engaging in such relationships to maximize their learning possibilities and learning process. Together with conflicting goals, this can lead to a dysfunctional relationship and can lead to subsequent failure of the relationship (Quintana & Benavides, 2004). This failure can be the result of the risk of opportunistic behavior perceived by the firms due to the

exchange of valuable information and resources with the partner (Park & Russo, 1996). In this light, transaction cost economics characterize a coopetition as a risky business, because it is considered difficult to prevent the competitor to access the valuable and distinctive resources of the firm.

Furthermore, the coopetitive relationship is undermined when actions are done due to the incentives to act in a self-interested way (Quintana & Benavides, 2004). The ability of the competitors to

(14)

the case of this opportunistic behavior, tensions are arising easily and can be detrimental for the relationship (Quintana & Benavides, 2004). Aforementioned, trust is an important aspect of the coopetitive relationship. When there are incentives to act opportunistically, trust in the other party will be at stake and furthermore the firms become more cautious in dealing with each other. Following this argument it can be the case that the firms act cautiously and this may not be helpful for the collective outcomes (Bradford et al., 2004).

2.2.5. Agency theory and stewardship theory (Model of man)

There is an interesting discussion going on about the distinction between an agency theory-based relationship between firms (or individuals) and a stewardship theory-based relationship between firms (or individuals). In a coopetitive relationship, although not within one firm, interactions between the two parties show similarities with the underlying basis of the two theories.

2.2.5.1. Agency theory

According to the agency theory, an individual is one that tries to maximize its own utility and to achieve this with the least possible expenditure (Davis et al., 1997). Similar to the coopetitive relationship, agency costs can be expected to occur when the interests of the involved parties differ and there is a possibility that the other firm will maximize its own profit at the expense of the other. According to agency theorists, firms cannot fully predict ex ante whether or not the other firm will behave opportunistically (Williamson, 1985). Therefore the objective in this theory is to decrease the possibility of opportunistic behavior by employing controlling mechanisms that prevent the other party from acting opportunistically (Davis et al., 1997). Important in the discussion of the two theories is the model of man. Specifically, agency theorists see individuals (i.e. firms) as individualistic and self-serving. So the agency theory focuses on the more ‘negative’ model of man and argues that when the firms have differing interests, monitoring mechanisms can help to align the differing interest (Davis et al., 1997).

2.2.5.2. Stewardship theory

(15)

approach rather than the latter (Davis et al., 1997). Even in a situation where there are conflicting interests, the steward individual places higher utility to cooperation than defection (Davis et al., 1997).

2.2.5.3. Differences between agency theory and stewardship theory in the light of a coopetitive relationship

There are several differences between the two theoretical streams. According to Davis et al. (1996) there are psychological as well as situational factors that differentiate between the agency theory and stewardship theory, which also play a role in the coopetitive relationship. The model of man, being the most important and obvious differentiating factor, is accompanied by factors as motivation,

management philosophy, and organizational culture, which are especially relevant for the coopetitive relationship and the management of tensions. By explaining the differences between the two

theoretical streams and discovering the importance of the factors for the coopetitive relationship, this study adds to the theory.

To start with motivation, in the agency theory the focus lies on extrinsic rewards. These rewards, tangible, exchangeable commodities that have a certain market value, are the basis for the control mechanisms that are present in the agency theory (Davis et al., 1997). These rewards have a

quantifiable value and this value is recognized by both parties. In the stewardship theory the focus is on intrinsic rewards and these rewards are not easily quantifiable. In other words, intrinsic rewards are rewards that have to do with opportunities for growth, achievement, and self-actualization (Davis et al., 1997). For the coopetition this means that when the motivation of the partner is focused on gaining added value and is mainly focused on earning more money it will follow the agency theory and tensions can be controlled by a well-framed reward (i.e. dividing) structure. However when the motivation of the partner is focused on growth possibilities for the self and possibilities for

achievement, it will follow the stewardship theory and tensions can be controlled by focusing on the shared attributes and stimulate a feeling of collectiveness (Davis et al., 1997).

The management philosophy is also expected to be important for a coopetitive relationship and how managers deal with inter-organizational tensions. The model of man and the assumptions coming with it forms the basis for the differing philosophies of the management (Davis et al., 1997). Lawler (1992) differentiates between a control-oriented philosophy and an involvement-oriented philosophy.

Control-oriented management is characterized by a separation of the control of the work part and the actual work part. Involvement-oriented management is not characterized by a separation; moreover it emphasizes self-management and self-control (Davis et al., 1997). For involvement-oriented

(16)

that is characterized by control-oriented management systems (i.e. agency theory), the importance of trust is considered less important. Involvement-oriented management systems are accompanied by a high need for trust. Tensions may occur when the management systems are not compatible and one party for instance is employing a control-oriented approach and the other party an involvement-oriented approach. This also is related to the earlier discussed underlying issue of similarity between the two involved firms.

Following the similarity issue, organizational culture plays a role in the coopetitive relationship. This is the case, because whereas agency theory focuses on individualistic behaviors and maximum economic utility for the individual, stewardship theory focuses on collectivistic behaviors and maximum value for the two involved parties (Davis et al., 1997). Following the reasoning of the similarity issue, tensions may occur when the organizational culture of the two firms occurs and there are different assumptions at play. This again relates to the differing model of man of the two

theoretical streams (Davis et al., 1997).

Now horizontal coopetition in a SME environment will be discussed. It explains the reasons why coopetition is especially relevant in a SME context.

2.3. Horizontal coopetition in a SME environment

Following the resource-based view the importance of coopetition is argued to be greater in the context of Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). The

internationalization of economy, the frequent and uncertain changes, the greater competition among firms, the need for continuous innovations, and the growing use of information technologies force SMEs to face the challenge of improving their competitiveness (Aragon & Sanchez, 2005). To deal with the challenges of rising R&D costs, high risk and uncertainty in technological development, and the lack of resources, SMEs are suggested to collaborate with competitors so that they can create economies of scale, mitigate risks, and leverage resources together (Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Morris et al., 2007). Strategic collaborations are very important for technological development as SMEs are often not able to develop technologies on their own due to high costs, uncertainties, and risks involved (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). Coopetition between SMEs is logical as competitors face similar challenges and possess resources and capabilities that are relevant to each other (Chen, 1996). However scholars argue that when engaging in coopetitive relationships tensions arise.

2.4. Inter-organizational tension

(17)

incompatible behavior, goals, or activities between at least two parties (Tidström, 2014). The focus in this study is on tensions as situations of conflicts that are the present or forthcoming in coopetitive relationships. In the light of the game theory there are many studies focusing on types of tension in business relationships, however not that often in coopetition relationships (Jehn & Mennix, 2001). Frontrunners in the field of coopetition, Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1995), already begin to describe the process of coopetition and that it can be that firms act opportunistically and eventually can create tensions. In other words, firms are looking for opportunities of win-win or win-lose. In general, tensions are considered as a negative side of business relationships (Tidström, 2014), however Fang et al. (2011) addresses the need for more research in relationship tensions. Also, Bradford et al. (2004) showed that tensions can have both have negative as well as positive effects as an outcome. In other words, this means that tensions can lead to the termination of the coopetition and thereby the loss of committed resources. In contrast, tensions can lead to the production of new ideas and methods that are beneficial for the involved firms. Furthermore, conflicts can be described as positive as it can lead to a win-win for both the involved firms and thus increase value co-creation (Mele, 2011). The negative conflicts are the conflicts that result in win-lose. This result can have destructive effects for the coopetitive relationship and can diminish the performance of the relationship; furthermore it threatens the value co-creation (Mele, 2011). Important in this research is that there is a distinction between inter-personal conflict and task-related conflict. Inter-personal conflicts are conflicts based on non-task related incompatibilities, for example an individual of the other firm is viewed as unethical and evokes negative feelings and therefore there is an inter-personal conflict. An inter-personal conflict produces suspicion, distrust and ultimately leads to a decrease in willingness to tolerate opposition and the exchange of information (Bradford et al., 2004). Task-related conflicts are defined as disagreements over how to finish work together. These conflicts are often the consequence of structural incompatibilities. These incompatibilities are the consequence of different organizational cultures, processes, and different views on how to do the work (Bradford et al., 2004). Four forms of tensions are defined and moreover addressed in this study as these are expected to be the most appropriate within coopetitive relationships. These four tensions are; Role-, knowledge-, power and dependence-, and opportunism tensions and these will be discussed later (Tidström, 2014).

2.5. Competitive dynamism in horizontal coopetition on tensions

(18)

the friendliness of the relationship. There is a lack of hostility and the relationship is argued to be more cooperative in nature. When looking at underlying issues as trust, complementarity, and tie-strength between the involved firms; strong competitive dynamism is often characterized by low scores on these three variables, whereas weak competitive dynamism scores high on these three variables (Bengtsson et al., 2010). Interestingly, strong competitive forces lead to more tensions on one hand, but also can provide strong potential benefits on the other hand (Tidström, 2014). The underlying issues that have an impact on the competitive dynamism are directly related to the underlying issues that have an impact on tensions; therefore this will be discussed after a discussion about the different forms of tensions.

2.6. Types of inter-organizational tensions

These types of tensions are the sources of the emerging of tensions. These sources are argued to lead to tensions in a coopetitive relationship.

2.6.1. Role tensions

Role tensions stem from the tension between a cooperative and competitive orientation. For example an organization that cooperates with a competing firm may perceive a tension between the goals of the organization and the goals of the coopetitive relationship (Tidström, 2014). Role-related conflicts deals with the conflict that arises with a differing perception about the degree and type of

responsibility that the other firm or individual think they should have (Mele, 2011). Role tensions also can occur on an individual level. For instance, it can occur that individuals perceive role tensions when they are interacting with the competitor firm or that there are tensions perceived within the own firm (Tidström, 2014).

2.6.2. Knowledge tensions

Knowledge tension may also represent a tension in a coopetitive relationship. Knowledge constitutes a source of competitive advantage, and knowledge sharing is an important objective in coopetition (Chin, Chan & Lam, 2008). It is important to find the balance between what to share and what to keep secret, which is an important consideration in coopetition (Tidström, 2014). In the coopetitive context, the collective use of the knowledge the firms share to benefit both parties is considered the cooperative side, whereas the notion to outperform the partners by using the shared knowledge is considered the competitive side (Khanna et al., 1998).

(19)

Power and dependence tensions relate to tensions that arise when the coopetition is characterized by an unbalance in power and dependence as for instance one firm has more power than the other firm (Tidström, 2014). In this study the focus is on SMEs, this type of tension is often applicable when a SME is engaging in a coopetitive relationship with a larger firm. A smaller firm, for instance, can become dependent on the larger firm, because the latter has more power due to the fact that it has more resources (Osarenkhoe, 2010). It can be imagined that a large firm can have the possibility to decrease the margins on its products, for a smaller firm this is however more difficult and can have detrimental effects. So when a smaller firm engages in such a relationship it is incentivized to reduce its

dependence and therefore increase its control in the coopetitive relationship (Luo, 2005).

2.6.4. Opportunism tensions

Finally opportunism tensions, these are tensions that arise from the notion that one firm in the coopetition sees an opportunity to expand its business on the cost of the other firm. In other words, it can be described as the tendency to benefit from the exploitation of the partner in the light of self-interest (Tidström, 2014). When engaging in a coopetitive relationship, the competitive firm is allowed insight to a degree to obtain insight of the core competences of the firm and the possible ability to copy these core competences (Lado et al., 1997). It is impossible to argue that firms completely shift from self-interest behavior to collective-interest behavior. One firm can also feel threatened by the other, and therefore can behave opportunistically and therefore can create tensions (Tidström, 2014).

2.7. Underlying topics that have an impact on tensions

As mentioned earlier, matters as trust are of influence in the context of tensions in a coopetitive relationship. According to several authors there are some underlying issues with regard to tensions. Similarity, personal relationships, trust, commitment, and the institutional context have an influence on the presence and management of tensions.

2.7.1. Similarity

(20)

this, it can be stated that a lack of organizational fit can lead to inter-organizational tensions. On the other hand, similarity between the involved firms can also mean that the firms focus on the same customers. In the light of a coopetitive relationship, this obviously can lead to tensions as this can be the competitive side of the relationship (Tidström, 2014).

2.7.2. Personal relationships

When firms engage in coopetitive relationships, individual representatives interact with each other and influence each other’s businesses. Personal relationships can be private relationships as well as on a professional level. Both are argued to be necessary in a coopetitive relationship. This is because personal relationships can decrease the risk of opportunistic behavior (Bengtsson et al.,2003).

Opportunistic behavior is argued to lead to inter-organizational tensions (Tidström, 2014). Moreover, strong personal relationships between individuals involve a higher degree of trustworthiness and are argued to lead to easier problem solving (Uzzi, 1997).

2.7.3. Trust

Trust is an important aspect within the coopetitive relationship, because of the fact that there is a competitive force active in such a cooperative relationship. Several authors communicate about trust in an inter-organizational perspective. Trust is described as the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence (Moorman et al., 1992). Trust in the other party is argued to reduce the potential for tensions (Tidström, 2014). Chin et al. (2008) add to this that the development of trust is important in dealing with a coopetitive relationship. It is considered important, because it maintains the cooperative aspect in the relationship. Subsequently, a relationship with a higher level of trust is argued to have fewer possibilities for conflicts or tensions and accounts for a greater satisfaction regarding the partnership (Anderson & Narus, 1990). In the coopetitive relationship it is often the case that knowledge, resources, and other aspects are shared with the other party. A trustworthy

relationship improves the exchange of these resources (Morris et al., 2007; Uzzi, 1996). Trust in a coopetitive relationship is of high importance, because in such a relationship the involved firms are seeking a balance for realizing goals according to the self-interest or the goals according to the mutual interest. In coopetition, trust is developing along several aspects, like the aforementioned, sharing of resources, communication, meeting the deadlines, and the utilization of information (Tidström, 2014). The existence of trust in an inter-organizational relationship leads to the tendency of firms to choose for the realization of goals in accordance with the mutual-interest (Lui & Ngo, 2005).

(21)

Commitment is another underlying issue that is considered important in the situation of a coopetitive relationship. It is defined as the lasting desire to be involved in the ongoing valued relationship (Moorman et al., 1992). The desire is characterized by a willingness to invest financial as well as non-financial resources in the relationship (Morris et al., 2007). Commitment in a coopetitive relationship is important, as the degree of each firm’s commitment is determining the viability of the relationship over time (Morris et al., 2007). Related to the degree of trust perceived between the involved firm in the relationship and the conflicting underlying logic of the (coopetitive) relationship, the involved parties may have opportunistic incentives to under-commit in the relationship due to the fact the firm wants to realize benefits for the firm’s self-interest and may want to do that with minimal resources (Morris et al., 2007). Because in a coopetitive relationship, the efforts of one partner affect the other partner’s success and the success of the relationship, it is important to consider under-commitment of a firm (Morris et al., 2007). Trust therefore is a primary determinant for the levels of commitment (Sargeant & Lee, 2004). Trust in and commitment to the relationship develops over time and these factors influence each other, which leads to a contribution to the success of the coopetitive

relationship. When the levels of both of the factors are considered high, it is easier to overcome adaptation problems in the relationship and the firms are willing to exchange critical information and resources with the other firm (Morris et al., 2007). Furthermore, the level of perceived mutual benefit the relationship is able to provide influences the level of commitment of the involved firms. This is because the relationship provides an opportunity to increase its firm self-interest as well as the success of the coopetitive relationship (Morris et al., 2007).

2.7.5. Institutional context

Finally, the institutional context that plays a role in the coopetitive relationship is of importance. It is described as the way firms are influenced by social norms and perceived behavior that is acceptable and applicable in the market. The capacity to conform to these standards is considered important in coopetitive relationship, as it relates to a lower risk of opportunistic behavior (Tidström, 2014). Because of the institutional context and thereby the perceptions of acceptable behavior, the possibility to behave individualistically in a coopetitive relationship is not as much as it the competitive aspect implies (Tidström, 2014). Tidström (2014) adds to this that coopetitive relationship may be susceptible to the labeling of an illegal cartel, therefore she argues that from an institutional perspective this influences the relationship between the competitors as they do not want to be seen as an illegal cartel. The following section will move to the discussion of the different types of inter-organizational tensions that are discovered in horizontal coopetitive relationships.

(22)

As indicated earlier, in this study there is a distinction between task-related conflicts and inter-personal conflicts. This means that there is distinction between cognitive conflicts (i.e. task-related) and affective conflicts (i.e. inter-personal). Whereas cognitive conflict is characterized by a

functional, task-related conflict and is about how to best achieve common objectives, affective conflict is characterized by a dysfunctional, emotional conflict and is a consequence of incompatibilities among decision participants (Higashide & Birley, 2002). Overall, cognitive conflicts are argued to lead to positive firm performance, whereas affective conflicts are argued to lead to negative effects on firm performance (Klotz et al., 2014). Important to this is that there is a stream of research that advocates critical and investigative interaction between two parties. Devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry are techniques that are used to generate discussions stemming from opposing or different positions (Higashide & Birley, 2002). Solving conflicts appropriately and effectively can lead to producing a synthesis that is qualitatively superior for the involved firms (Churchman, 1971). Moderate levels of cognitive conflicts are constructive, because the different views are discussed and evaluated, which leads to generating more ideas and improving the process. Following ‘two is better than one’, synthesizing two opinions is argued to be more beneficial than one opinion which

subsequently will lead to better results (Higashide, Birley, 2002). High levels of cognitive conflicts are argued to negatively affect the performance, because there is an inability to reach consensus.

Interestingly, high levels of cognitive conflicts can turn into a personal conflict and therefore it is possible and not unlikely that the two conflicts exists simultaneously (Amason, 1996).

Affective conflicts are argued to negatively affect the performance of the relationship (Klotz et al., 2014). When there are inter-personal conflicts, people tend to have negative emotions towards to other people. Together with negative emotions, they feel friction, experience personality clashes, and this ultimately leads to a decrease in effectively working together and worse results (Higashide & Birley, 2002). In such a conflict, people tend to be angry, as a result these people tend to lose

perspective about the task that has to be performed (Kelley, 1979). Hence, as a consequence affective conflicts will lead to sub-optimal performance. Also, interestingly there seems to be an interaction between cognitive conflicts and affective conflicts. This is because cognitive conflicts can eventually lead to affective conflicts (Higashide & Birley, 2002).

2.9. Managing inter-organizational tensions

(23)

best known approaches for understanding the options a firm has when dealing with a conflict. The authors come up with five differentiated approaches; namely, collaboration, competition, compromise, avoidance, and accommodation. These styles will be discussed subsequently;

2.9.1. Collaboration

Collaboration is characterized by a firm’s willingness to optimize the relationship and pursuit a win-win outcome that is beneficial for the involved firms (Tidström, 2014). With this in regard, the firms, when dealing with conflict, are determined to come up with solutions that are considered beneficial for both the involved parties. In other words, a firm will be determined to reach its firm goals as well as the goals of the partner’s firm. Obviously this style of management is beneficial and desirable for both firms (Tidström, 2014). This style of management indicates an integrative, problem-solving style of conflict handling and is considered as an effective conflict management style (Pruitt, 1983). To sum up, collaboration is argued to be an effective management style for handling tensions in a coopetitive relationship and is pointed at a problem-solving orientation.

2.9.2. Competition

Competition is, as the so-called management style, characterized by the unfriendly side of the

coopetition. It is focused on self-interest and a win-lose situation. Moreover, this can be coupled with forceful behavior (Tidström, 2014). In their research, Bradford et al. (2004) argue that this

management style can both have positive as well as negative effects. This is dependable on the situation and the relationship of the coopetition. If a relationship is characterized by a friendly, relaxed, and attentive nature, forceful behavior can result in positive outcomes for the involved firms. So, when we look at the aforementioned underlying issues of tensions, high levels of trust in and commitment to the relationship, results in weaker competitive dynamism, and eventually forceful behavior can be beneficial when encountering a conflict. Due to the friendly nature of the coopetition, the involved firms are more willing to express their selves and can behave forceful (Bradford et al., 2004). However, when the competitive dynamism is stronger, forceful behavior can lead to

controversy and eventually can lead to a lower satisfaction and a decrease in willingness to cooperate (Bradford et al., 2004). In this research it is interesting to look at this more in-depth.

2.9.3. Compromise

(24)

(Tidström, 2014). Although closely related, compromise and collaborate are two different management styles. Whereas collaboration is more about achieving synthesis and create an even greater ‘pie’ together, compromise is about dividing the existing ‘pie’ and not taking further action. As collaboration is about creating an even greater ‘pie’, it can be defined as non-zero-sum game. On the other hand, as the existing ‘pie’ is difficult or impossible to make bigger, compromise can be defined as a zero-sum game (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1995). Compromising has not yet been fully studied according to Tidström (2014) further investigation is needed; therefore the compromising style is also within the scope of this research.

2.9.4. Avoidance

Avoidance is the least committed solution, and is characterized by suppressing the tension. This style of management is not often used, according to earlier studies (Tidström, 2014). Avoidance is

considered a passive management style. However it can be useful to use this style of managing, when a tension between the parties is considered as not that important or crucial to the relationship. It would be costly to address the tension, because the benefits of dealing with the tensions is expected to be lower than the costs made due to for instance communication (e.g. transaction costs) (Tidström, 2014).

2.9.5. Accommodation

Accommodation is a management style for conflict handling that is pointed at benefits for the involved partner. It is argued to be effective to create a situation where the involved firms perceive each other as willing to listen, willing to accept other opinions, and willing to make concessions (Bradford et al., 2004). It is expected to be especially relevant, when there is an existing conflict with the partner. The existing conflict can have detrimental effects for the relationship and therefore by accommodating the firm shows that it is willing to commit to the relationship (Bradford et al., 2004).

2.10. Theoretical framework

Summarizing the above the literature states that when two firms collaborate and compete

simultaneously there is a case of coopetition. Horizontal coopetition is a collaborating relationship with a direct competitor in the same industry. So when firm X and firm Y, direct competitors of each other, engage in a collaborating relationship, there is a case of horizontal coopetition.

(25)

logics can lead to tensions. This is the case, because firms are collaborating on one hand, leading to a situation that is characterized by friendliness and the willingness to achieve mutual benefits. And on the other hand, the firms are competing on a level, which leads to a situation that is characterized by hostility and the pursuit for self-interest. These two contradicting logics are argued to lead to inter-organizational tensions.

These inter-organizational tensions can be present in different forms. In this study four different tensions are differentiated and discussed. These tensions are role-, knowledge-, power and dependence-, and opportunism tensions. In this study a situation with tension is a situation of

incompatible behavior, goals, or activities between at least two parties. Tensions can have detrimental effects for the coopetition and lead to negative outcomes; however it can also lead to new ideas for products or processes and thus lead to positive outcomes.

The management of tensions therefore is crucial; when managing tensions correctly and appropriately tensions can have positive effects for both of the firms. However when tensions are not correctly and appropriately managed, it can have detrimental effects. There are different management styles discussed and appropriate for coopetitive relationships. These management styles are collaboration, competition, compromise, avoidance, and accommodation. These styles vary in degree of competitive force, so where some styles are pointed at win-win situations, others are pointed at win-lose situations.

Ultimately the management of tensions leads to a positive, negative, or mixed outcome for the performance of the firm as well as for the coopetition. Aforementioned, positive outcomes are related to novel products, services, or processes that for instance increase the performance of the firms. Negative outcomes are related to situations that hurt the relationship of the involved firms as well as the performance of the firms. These situations moreover, are situations that are perceived as negative by both parties. Mixed outcomes however relate to win-lose situations and are characterized by one firm being satisfied with the outcome and the other firm being dissatisfied with the outcome.

(26)

This process of the coopetition and the presence or forthcoming and management of tensions is depicted in figure 1.

Figure 1: Theoretical framework

The literature review shows the complexity of the coopetitive relationship. Furthermore it is shown that there is a gap; further research is needed to investigate the process of dealing with tensions in a coopetitive relationship.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction

Research recommends a case study to better understand coopetition challenges (Bengtsson et al., 2010). As there has been less attention paid to the sources and management of tensions associated to coopetition (Fernandez et al., 2014) it is important to do an in-depth case study approach to

(27)

therefore this study uses a case-study approach (Gnyawali & Park, 2011). By doing in-depth case studies, the opportunity is created to expand the current field of literature as well as confirming existing literature associated with tensions in coopetitive relationships (Yin, 1994). Easton (1995) states moreover that case studies are appropriate for studying business networks because they enable the researcher to capture the complex pattern of links between the different actors in the network.

One of the key benefits of qualitative research is that it allows the researcher to see and understand the context within which decisions and actions take place. It is the context that helps to ‘explain’ why someone acted as they did (Myers, 2009).

This research will be done using qualitative data to better understand the coopetitive relationship. This data is used to explore the process that is described in the theoretical framework (figure 1). In-depth interviews were conducted with the use of the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) to explore the forthcoming, process, and outcome of tensions.

3.2. Data collection

The data was collected by a preliminary phone call followed by a semi-structured interview

(Appendix). These were face-to-face interviews taking approximately 40 to 60 minutes in length. The phone call allowed the researcher to examine whether the company and relationship meets the criteria of the study. The following criteria are crucial for the study:

1. The company has fewer than 50 employees

2. The company is part of a horizontal coopetitive relationship 3. The coopetitive relationship has been exposed to tensions

(28)

The key concepts that are included in the semi-structured interview scheme are now discussed. Table 1 depicts the concepts that are measured.

3.2.1. Background information

First of all, it is of importance to ask questions regarding the background of the interviewee. This is important because the interviewee can tell his background story and this will lead to a more

comfortable feeling of the interviewee and this helps to enhance the interviewer-interviewee

interaction (Emans, 2004). After this introduction, questions regarding the background of the firm are asked, to create an image of the company as well as a test whether the criteria are met regarding the coopetitive relationship and the scope of this study. An introduction to the firm is needed to establish in what industry the firm is competing, the firm itself, the history, and the relationship to the other firms (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000).

Furthermore, because of the fact that the relationship contains a partner that is also considered a competitor, we ask the respondent to explain in detail why the partner is considered a partner (Chan et al., 2007). To add more meaning and reliability to the explanation the company is asked to specify the competitive relationship. Mason (1957) defines an industry on the basis of the similarity of products/services and also the similarity of the technologies.

3.2.2. Horizontal inter-organizational coopetition

As discussed a coopetition is characterized by a competitive dynamism and the underlying factors that are present in the coopetitive relationship. The competitive dynamism of the relationship is closely related to the underlying factors that are the foundation of the coopetitive relationship. As the coopetitive dynamism is determined by the degree of trust, complementarity, and tie-strength

(Bengtsson et al., 2010), questions are developed regarding these factors and these are related to trust, similarity, and personal relationship (Tidström, 2014). After establishing the competitive dynamism, the underlying issues of the relationship are further discussed to create an image of the relationship.

3.2.3. Horizontal inter-organizational tensions

(29)

As stated, in-depth case studies and research in the form of in-depth interviews with managers of SMEs can facilitate to generate insights about the sources and the management of tensions

stemming from dyadic coopetitive relationships (Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016). The case study is therefore a well-suited research approach regarding the examination of inter-organizational tensions. Eisenhardt (1989) states that a case study concerns a research approach which focuses on

understanding the dynamics present within single settings. Consequently such an approach can help to understand the tensions and the management of these tensions of inter-firm coopetition (Fernandez et al., 2014).

Table 1: Concepts, Questions, Purpose, Authors regarding interview scheme

Concept Questio

n

Purpose Authors

Characteristics of the interviewee

Q1 Background story of the interviewee, comfortable feeling of the

interviewee.

Emans, (2004)

Characteristics of the firm Q2-a/b/c Background of the firm, evaluate on criteria according scope study

Bengtsson & Kock, 2000)

Characteristics coopetitive relationship

Q3-Q5 Establish the

characteristics of the coopetitive relationship, evaluate the competitive force of the relationship

Mason (1957); Chan et al., (1997)

Competitive dynamism Q6-Q9 Establish the competitive force; establish the friendliness of the relationship

Bengtsson et al., (2010); Chen et al., (2007); Tidström, (2014)

Underlying issues

Similarity

Q10-Q11

Establish the degree of similarity between the firms

Padula & Dagnino (2005); Saxton (1997); Tidström (2014)

(30)

Q13 trust experienced in the relationship

Tidström (2014)

Commitment

Q14-Q15

Establish the degree of commitment experienced in the relationship

Moorman et al. (1992); Morris et al. (2007)

Personal relationship Q16 Establish and describing the personal relationship with the partner

Bengtsson et al., (2003); Uzzi (1997)

Institutional context Q17-Q18

Establish the institutional context of the

relationship and of the market Tidström (2014) Inter-organizational tension Q19-Q20 Description of tensions perceived in the

relationship, the positive outcomes and drawbacks of the coopetitive relationship

Tidström & Hagberg (2012); Tidström (2014); Bradford et al. (2004)

The critical incident technique (CIT)

Q21-Q26

Description of situation of the forthcoming of tensions, the cause of tensions, the nature of tensions, the outcome of tensions, and the

management of tensions in the relationship

CIT: Flanagan (1954); Chell

& Pittaway (1998) Tensions: Higashide & Birley (2002); Tidström (2014); Bengtsson et al. (2010); Bengtsson & Kock (2000); Management of

tensions: Tidström (2014);

Thomas & Killmann (1974)

3.3. Sample

(31)

relationship. The sample consists of an employment agency, two consultancy firms, one paint

developer/producer, one digital printing company, and one ICT firm. The reason to choose these firms is on the basis of the initial phone call. All the respondents indicated that they were engaging in a coopetitive relationship and that it was relevant in the scope of the study. Next to that, as Bengtsson et al. (2010) argued, coopetition can comprise varying degrees of cooperation and coopetition. Therefore in this research, also following Tidström (2014), cases are selected on the basis of the force of

cooperation or competition. Cases with high competitive aspects and low cooperative aspects are selected, as well as low competitive aspects and high cooperative aspects. This is done because it allows for a comparison between cases with different characteristics and allows for an understanding of tensions in these cases (Tidström, 2014). The sample consists of two cases that are characterized as highly competitive, three cases that are characterized as moderately competitive, and one case that is characterized as weakly competitive.

3.4. Data analysis

A qualitative study requires decisions regarding the execution of the analysis. These decisions should inform, and be informed by, the rest of the research design (Maxwell, 2005). Starting point of the data analysis was reading the interview transcripts, the observational notes, or documents that are to be analyzed. With the recording of the interview, the researcher is able to listen back the interview and analyze the data precisely. Throughout the interview notes and memos should be written down to develop ideas about the tensions, the management of tensions, and the coopetitive relationship (Eisenhardt, 1989). Interviews that have been held and recorded are listened back on the same day or at most one day after the interview, because the data is easier recalled in this way. Together with the written notes and memos, the interview was transcribed (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The important and interesting topics were selected from the interview and this helped analyzing the data. The data was analyzed inductively and deductively. The inductive process is moving from specific observations to some general conclusions and theories. Deductively means that the data confirmed/negates the propositions (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

(32)

categorized. In this way, the theoretical framework is evaluated from right to left and the researcher is able to critically assess the theoretical framework.

3.5. Quality criteria

Regarding the collection of data, in-depth interviews were held. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and the informants were selected on the basis of having the best knowledge about the coopetitive relationships and the process and arising of tensions during the relationship (Tidström, 2014). This was done by a phone call before the interview that provides the researcher the opportunity to evaluate the respondent (Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016). Quality criteria as controllability, reliability, and validity are seen as the most essential within research, because these criteria are the main determinants of inter-subjective agreement (Swanborn, 1996; Yin, 1984).Therefore it is useful to discuss these criteria in more detail. Firstly, controllability is discussed, subsequently reliability and finally validity.

3.5.1. Controllability

A prerequisite for the evaluation of reliability and validity is controllability. It concerns the first step in realizing inter-subjective agreement of the research results. Moreover, a detailed description of the study allows others to replicate the study and this is the goal of reaching controllability (Aken, Berends & Bij, 2012). Together with the detailed description of the methods used, the results are also presented as precisely as possible (Swanborn, 1996).

3.5.2. Reliability

Reliability is the notion that the results of a study are independent of the characteristics involved with the particular study. Thereby it is of importance that it can be replicated in other studies (Yin, 2003; Swanborn, 1996). Independent of the characteristics that are involved in a study is, in other words independent of the researcher characteristics, respondent characteristics, measurement instruments, and the specific circumstances (Aken, Berends & Bij, 2012). In dealing with researcher bias, this study follows a standardization procedure. Standardization means the development and use of explicit procedures for data collection, analysis and interpretation. Specifically, the use of semi-structured interviews deals with the researcher bias to a certain extent (Aken, Berends, Bij, 2012). This allows also for the ‘replication logic’ mentioned by Yin (1984) thereby treating cases as a series of

THE SOURCES AND MANAGEMENT OF TENSIONS IN HORIZONTAL INTER- ORGANIZATIONAL COOPETITION IN A SME CONTEXT