Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2023

Stimulators and Barriers to Coopetition in Non-Commercial

Entities - Case Study of Cultural Institutions

Patrycja Juszczyk

Management Theory Department, University of Economics in Katowice

1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland

Tel: +48 793061636

Email: patrycja.juszczyk@uekat.pl

Abstract

Research on the stimulators and barriers to establishing and developing coopetition has so far been conducted in

management literature mainly from the perspective of enterprises. Although the subject of management in the

cultural sector has for several decades been attracting more and more interest from researchers and practitioners

operating in this field, interest has rarely been shown in the area of coopetition, while analysis has never been

conducted into the stimulating factors and barriers to coopetition among cultural institutions. Taking into

account the specificity of the functioning of non-commercial organizations, including the context of such

organizations’ activities in the field of culture, as well as the growing role of public and non-profit organizations

in the economy, the aim of this article is to identify the stimulators and barriers to establishing and developing

coopetition in non-commercial organizations based on the example of cultural institutions. The research results

are the product of qualitative field research conducted among 42 museums in Poland. Based on the research, 18

stimulators and 11 barriers to establishing and developing coopetition among cultural institutions were

identified.

Keywords: coopetition, non-commercial entities, cultural institutions, cultural sector, stimulators of coopetition,

barriers of coopetition

Applied Management under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. Our journal is an open

access resource which means that all content is freely available without charge. Users are allowed to read,

download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful

purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. For more information about this

paper and our journal visit our website.

Submitted: 2023-03-21 / Published: 2023-11-13

Patrycja Juszczyk

1 INTRODUCTION

Many examples from economic practice show that competing organizations, to a limited or wide extent,

rely on cooperative relations with rivals in order to achieve their goals more effectively and efficiently, increase

performance, access and exploit resources, create more value or gain market strength (Hung & Chang, 2012;

Czakon, 2014; Park & Kim, 2021; Seepana et al., 2021). Such an amalgamation of both competition and

cooperation is coopetition (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1997), considered as the most effective form of

relationship between organizations (Walley, 2007). Although the concept of coopetition is not new (Meena et

al., 2023), and the existing literature answers many questions about coopetition, and it explains and describes

both the phenomenon itself and the aspects related to it, researchers still point to a high degree of terminological

and cognitive discrepancy, revealing the need for a coherent and synthetic conceptualization of this

multidimensional construct (Dorn et al., 2016; Crick & Crick, 2023). What is more, the phenomenon, although

studied mainly from the perspective of enterprises, is not only important for commercial entities. Public and

non-profit organizations also rely on coopetition to achieve specific goals, resulting from, e.g. the mission. It

should be noted, however, that despite decades of research on the coopetition phenomenon, the literature review

reveals sporadic research interest in coopetition in non-commercial organizations, and thus – a clear research

gap, but there are a few important reasons why it remains important to pay attention to coopetition among public

and non-profit organizations.

Firstly, as noted, the concept of coopetition as a synergistic phenomenon has important implications among

non-commercial organisations. The literature indicates many objective market premises confirming the

existence of coopetition among non-profit organizations (Ritchie & Weinberg, 2000; Kylänen & Rusko, 2011).

Organizations in the public and non-profit sectors struggle with both limited financial and intangible resources,

which stimulates competition in these sectors and encourages organizations to enter into cooperative

relationships. It is worth noting that non-commercial organizations – despite the existence of objective market

conditions – often do not treat other organizations operating in the same sector as competitors (Juszczyk, 2021).

However, reality forces competition between non-commercial organizations, among others for funding,

employees, volunteers, influence, prestige, contracts, orders and recipients/users (Tuckman, 1998; Nikolova,

2015). Although the first publications on public benefit organizations appeared in the 1980s (Kramer et al.,

1981), and a steady increase and even a sharp acceleration of published research was noted after 2000 (Lyons,

2020), based on the literature review, it can be seen that the literature in the field of management, in particular

coopetition, has not developed significantly in this area.

A particularly interesting and dynamically developing sector, in which the vast majority of entities are non-

commercial organizations, is the cultural sector. This sector contributes significantly to economic growth by

increasing demand and supply for cultural products and services, especially in recent years as a result of the

development of information technologies (Ghazinoory et al., 2021). Research interest in the cultural sector has

so far been shown, among others, in the concept of culture industries, emphasizing the economic links between

popular culture and high culture (mainly associated with the world of art) (Galloway & Dunlop, 2007), and the

concept of the creative industries, emphasizing in a special way such elements as creativity, entrepreneurship

and productivity in culture management (Ghazinoory et al., 2021). What is important is that recent research has

revealed that modern cultural institutions, which are facing dynamic changes in functional and internal

processes, the increasingly diverse needs of recipients as well as problems with financing activities and limited

resources, are today seeking a competitive advantage in cooperation with competitors (Margolis, 2009; Cassar,

2013). Although for several decades the subject of management in the cultural sector has attracted increasing

interest among researchers and practitioners operating in this area, research has rarely been conducted in the

area of coopetition (Najam, 2003; Mariani, 2007, 2018; Poisson-de Haro & Myard, 2018; Meena,et al., 2023).

Thirdly, the phenomenon of coopetition allows organizations to achieve numerous benefits, including using

a smaller amount of the organization's own resources, or managing them more effectively by accessing the

resources of a partner, with whom they also combine resources (Hung & Chang, 2012), thus reducing risk and

operating costs (Ritala & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009). Hence, organizations are more and more often

entering into cooperation with competitors, and the resulting coopetition brings higher value to the organizations

than competition or cooperation alone (Czakon, 2014). These benefits are in practice stimulators to establishing

and developing coopetition. They have been relatively well recognized in the literature at the individual, dyad

and inter-organizational level (Gast et al., 2015; Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Dorn et. al, 2016; Chim-Miki

& Batista-Canino, 2017; Westra et al., 2017; Gernsheimer et al., 2021). However, there are also barriers on the

way to or during coopetition, as this phenomenon, considered to be paradoxical (Czakon et al., 2014) and full of

tension (Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016; Ritala et al., 2017), also entails certain risks or costs, such as a lack

of trust (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Crick et al., 2022), the risk of partner opportunism, or deterioration of the

organization's financial results (Sampson, 2007; Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Westra et al., 2017). These barriers are

often described in the literature as the “dark side of coopetition” (Crick et al., 2022). However, it should be

emphasized that research on the stimulators and barriers to establishing and developing coopetition has so far

been conducted in management literature mainly from the perspective of enterprises and identifying them in

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

non-commercial organizations, especially among cultural institutions, constitutes a marginal stream of research

(Meena et al., 2023).

Fourthly, in research on coopetition among cultural institutions, the specificity of the functioning of public

or non-profit organizations must be taken into account. This is because for organizations entangled in financing

problems and organizational deficiencies, which at the same time are subject to political decisions (Lorgnier &

Su, 2017) and have to compete for qualified employees or creating unique offers with entities from the private

sector (Mariani, 2007), the incentives and barriers to coopetition will probably be of a different nature to those

which have been identified so far in the private sector.

Taking into account the identified gaps in the literature on the subject, as well as the increasing role of

public and non-profit organizations in the economy, the aim of this article is to identify the stimulators and

barriers to establishing and developing coopetition in non-profit organizations based on the example of cultural

institutions. Thus I focused on the following research questions: (RQ1): What are the stimulators to establishing

and developing coopetition in non-profit organizations based on the example of cultural institutions; (RQ2):

What are the barriers to establishing and developing coopetition in non-profit organizations based on the

example of cultural institutions?

To reach the aim of the paper, a qualitative field research process was implemented. The research

contribution is based on the results of individual in-depth semi-structured interviews with representatives of 42

public and private museums in Poland.

The study offers three noteworthy contributions to the coopetition literature: (1) summarizing and

integrating existing knowledge on the stimulators and barriers to coopetition, (2) identifying and exemplifying

the factors determining the emergence and inhibition of coopetition, taking into account the specificity of non-

commercial organizations and three levels of analysis, i.e. at the inter-organizational, dyadic and individual level

among cultural institutions; (3) providing recommendations to managers of non-commercial entities for a better

understanding of coopetition and its impact on organizational activity, in particular on the drivers and barriers

that could be useful in the context of the formulation of an organization's strategy and dealing with the

paradoxes resulting from coopetition.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The theoretical part is divided into two sections. The

first discusses previous research findings in the field of coopetition among cultural institutions, taking into

account the specificity of this phenomenon among non-commercial organizations. The second part focuses on

briefly discussing the stimulators and barriers to establishing coopetition that have been so far identified in the

management literature. Next, the research methodology is described. Then, the research results are presented,

and in the last part of the article I discusses the main contributions, indicating the limitations of and future

directions for research.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Coopetition of Cultural Institutions

The popularization and recognition of the phenomenon of coopetition among researchers of management

has resulted in a significant increase in the number of empirical studies published in recent years in this field.

Previous research on the coopetition phenomenon can be divided into three main areas. The first of these

focuses on questions about the reasons for the occurrence of coopetition, explaining the determinants, motives

and conditions of its formation (Brandes et al., 2007). In this dimension, the authors mainly refer to the

following theoretical foundations: transaction cost economics (Wilhelm, 2011; Le Roy & Sanou, 2014);

institutional theory (Pathak et al., 2014); strategic learning theory (Fredrich et al., 2019; Gast et al., 2019); the

resource-based view (Bogner & Barr, 2000; Andersson & Evers, 2015) the relational view (Crick, 2019) or

absorptive capacity (Volschenk et al., 2016). The second focuses on research on the course of coopetition –

establishing coopetition, interactions, or coopetition as a process (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). In this area,

researchers refer to the following theoretical foundations e.g.: paradox theory (Gnyawali et al., 2016), tension

management (Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016; Ritala et al., 2017), or mutual trust (Morris et al., 2007; Czakon

& Czernek, 2016; Crick, 2019). Finally, the third area relates to the results and effects of coopetition (Bengtsson

& Raza-Ullah, 2016; Dorn et. al., 2016). The results of research indicate a positive relationship between

coopetition and, for example, an increase in market share (Gnyawali & Park, 2009), innovation (Ritala, 2012),

productivity (Le Roy & Czakon, 2016), or usefulness in the context of activities defined in the organization,

such as marketing activities (Chiambaretto et al., 2016), logistics (Wilhelm, 2011), or management control

(Grafton & Mundy, 2017). In addition, it appears that coopetition is important for the strategy of enterprises in

terms of the situation in the sector as well as economic and social development (Le Roy et al., 2018).

In strategic terms, coopetition is considered a dynamic strategy (Devece et al., 2019), which develops over

time (Kylänen & Rusko, 2011; Mariani, 2018), whereas the relational approach to coopetition defines it as "a

system of integration of various actors, which is based on a partial compatibility of interests and goals" (Czakon,

2014). We can assume that interdependence is the foundation of coopetition, and its degree may determine the

Patrycja Juszczyk

benefits gained, the achievement of convergent goals, and the creation and division of value. On the other hand,

engaging in coopetition often causes tensions, opportunistic behaviour and knowledge leakage, creating a

particularly vulnerable relationship (Fernandez et al., 2014; Tidström et al., 2018; Raza-Ullah, 2020). In this

context, it is suggested that research should pay more attention to the time aspect of coopetition, analysing how

the roles and dynamics between the partners involved change over time (Rajala & Tidström, 2017). In addition,

recent research confirms that coopetitors can assume different, sometimes conflicting, roles (Akpinar & Vincze,

2016; Qin et al., 2020), and emphasizes the importance of coopetitors constantly reconfiguring their relational

interdependencies (Ansari et al., 2016) as the partnership develops. Due to its difficult and potentially harmful

nature, coopetition is considered one of the most complex and demanding organizational phenomena

(Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016; Tippmann et al., 2018), which can be an immense challenge for managers

of cultural institutions.

The few studies conducted among cultural institutions suggest that as a result of, for example, the

diversification of functions and roles performed by contemporary cultural institutions – their "multi-product"

nature (Del Chiappa et al., 2014), project orientation, emerging new forms of financing (such as civic budgets),

or the need to compete with each other (very similar and sometimes even the same cultural services (Cheng,

2006)) - it is necessary to expand the scope of cooperation between cultural entities, including coopetition

(Cassar, 2013; Cortese et al., 2021). An example of coopetition is a situation where cultural institutions share

resources to enhance their visibility through a specific project like an exhibition, and at the same time, they have

to compete with each other to attract and sell their artworks during the show. As previous research on

coopetition among cultural institutions has revealed, involvement in coopetition allows cultural institutions to

achieve a competitive advantage, for example by creating a complementary and diversified cultural offer (Qizi,

2021). Coopetition stimulates knowledge transfer and its spillovers, which can have a positive impact on an

organization’s innovativeness (Bérubé & Gauthier, 2020), thus coopetitive relationships are crucial for the

creation and diffusion of knowledge among cultural institutions and for fostering their innovativeness.

Interactions with other institutions, social structures, in which the knowledge is embedded, are the prerequisite

for starting the process of creativity. This justifies the need to cooperate with other entities in order to inspire

and develop innovations. Coopetition is also a way to exchange experiences, skills and abilities, which is

important for entities dealing with culture because, unlike entities from the private sector, as non-profit entities

they devote more attention to creative work, providing specific goods and services of a socially useful nature

(Gainer & Padanyi, 2002; Finkel et al., 2017). Cooperation with rivals also allows cultural institutions to

maximize the use of limited resources, increasing the dynamics of action in the implementation of missions and

social goals. It gives cultural institutions the opportunity to overcome organizational shortcomings, and

positively affects the reduction of operating costs, achieving the effect of synergy in in the area of competences,

experience and knowledge, or increasing social legitimacy (Juszczyk, 2021).

The literature also indicates that as a result of individual perceptions of managers, cultural entities enter

into coopetition in a deliberate, unintentional and even unconscious way (Juszczyk, 2021), while coopetition

among cultural institutions manifests itself in at least three areas (Scheff & Kotler, 1996; Cheng 2006; Juszczyk,

2021): the artistic area, (e.g. organizing events cultural events, displaying permanent or temporary collections,

conducting research, etc.); 2.) the administrative and management area (e.g. in the field of personnel

management, marketing activities, administrative services, or substantive consulting) and 3.) the social area,

related to e.g. building public trust in the institution and ties of recipients with the cultural institution, with

conducting external pro-social activities with competitors, or maintaining social relationships between

representatives of the involved entities.

However, as has already been indicated, the previous considerations on the importance of coopetition for

the functioning and development of cultural institutions, due to research deficiencies, give an incomplete picture

of the actual state of affairs regarding the phenomenon of coopetition. It should be emphasized that the

coopetition relationships analyzed at the inter-organizational level are dependent on and specific to the industry

or area in which the entities operate (Czakon, 2014), hence they are contextual (Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016).

2.2 Stimulators and Barriers to Coopetition in Management

In the literature, the stimulators to establishing and developing coopetition have so far been analysed in the

form of antecedents (Bouncken & Fredrich, 2012; Kraus et al., 2018; Czakon et al., 2020; Kallmuenzer et al.,

2021), incentives (Devetag, 2009; Velu, 2016; Chión et al., 2018), motives (Song et al., 2015; Bengtsson &

Kock, 2020) and coopetition purposes (Arenas et al., 2021). It should be emphasized that these terms are

sometimes used by researchers interchangeably. Research on factors stimulating the establishment and

development of coopetition has developed significantly in the last decade – both in terms of scale and scope

(e.g., multi-level analysis, industry, dyad or enterprise perspective) (Gernsheimer et al., 2021). Whereas

previous research often discussed the antecedents, incentives and rationale behind coopetition mainly in terms of

its goals (most often on the basis of the resource-based theory of the firm), a recent wave of empirical research

has highlighted the existence of a distinct set of motives that lead organizations to cooperate with a competitor

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

(Kraus et al., 2018; Czakon et al., 2020). At this point, it should be emphasized that the vast majority of

previous research conducted in this area has related to profit-oriented enterprises.

So far, the stimuli for establishing and developing coopetition have been analyzed in the literature from

various perspectives, for example as internal (the organization’s goals, resources, strategies and capabilities),

relation-specific (e.g. partner and relationships characteristics) or external factors (i.e., political, social,

economic, technological factors and stakeholders) (e.g. Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Mariani, 2018). Padula

and Dagnino (2008) point to exogenous and endogenous drivers. The first of these are the forces provided by the

environmental sources of coopetition, affecting the degree and structure of the overlap of the partners' interests,

while the second – endogenous – forces derived from the dynamics of interaction, determined by the knowledge

profile of the dyad members. Factors that encourage coopetition can also be grouped into those of an inter-

organizational nature, occurring at the dyad or individual level. When analysis is conducted of stimulators to

coopetition at the dyad level, they include, for example: complementarity of resources, asymmetry of

knowledge, compatibility of goals, past and existing connections with potential partners, including relationship

flexibility, trust and the partner's reputation (Gast et al., 2015; Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Czakon &

Czernek, 2016; Dorn et al., 2016). In turn, among the stimuli to coopetition analysed at the level of a given

organization (the individual level), researchers most often identify the need to acquire knowledge and resources,

the current self-assessment of the organization (e.g. perceived vulnerability to threats, position, implemented

strategy), individual goals and capabilities, past experiences, existing social relationships and individual values

(Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Dorn et al., 2016; Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2017; Gernsheimer et al.,

2021). One of the recent studies on coopetition stimulators also indicates the existence of the so-called

coopetitive mindset (Czakon et al., 2020), an unobservable construct, which consists of: experience in

coopetition, cooperative orientation and trust. Among the very general stimuli to coopetition often mentioned by

researchers, the following have been highlighted: specific, existing market conditions, the degree of market

changes, competition within the industry, the phase of the industry's life cycle, the existence and powers of

regulatory authorities (Dorn et al., 2016). They also include: stakeholder pressure or technological requirements

affecting convergence, uncertainty within the industry, the complexity of the environment (Bengtsson & Raza-

Ullah, 2016; Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2017), but also globalization or deregulation (Czakon et al., 2014).

The important findings in terms of incentives for coopetition among non-commercial organizations relate

to the importance and influence of external stakeholders, such as policy makers, who can not only prepare the

ground for coopetition interactions, but can actually trigger and influence coopetition once it is formed (Mariani,

2018). It is worth emphasizing here that the influence of external stakeholders is related to unintentional

coopetition, which was not deliberately planned by cooperating competitors, but happened anyway as a result of

being imposed (Kylänen & Rusko, 2011), for example, by a financing entity or a political decision maker

(Lorgnier & Su, 2017). In general, external stakeholders such as policy makers and regulators can shape the

coopetition development and thus influence how organizations interact with each other over time (Mariani,

2018).

Nevertheless, coopetition is also conditioned by certain barriers. Research by Tidström (2009) identified

the fear of establishing cooperation with a competitor, as well as the fear of losing the autonomy of the

organization. The main barriers to establishing coopetition include the lack of trust between the parties involved,

which results in lowering the organization's performance (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Czakon & Czernek, 2016;

Crick et al., 2022). Recent research shows that coopetitive partner organizations can adopt opportunistic

behaviour, cause knowledge leakage, amplify tensions, challenge intellectual property, and undermine

competitive advantages (Crick, 2020; Czakon & Czernek-Marszałek, 2021). Some authors also point to the lack

of reciprocity in the exchange of resources (Hückstädt, 2022). Referring to the tensions caused by the existence

of coopetition, researchers indicate that they may occur at the individual, organizational and inter-organizational

level, while also emphasizing the role of emotions in relationships, resulting in the durability and intensity of

coopetition (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014). Tidstrom (2014) suggests that different voltages result in specific

outcomes. In extreme cases, the assessment of cooperation with competitors can be detrimental to a company's

performance (Crick, 2020), determining conflicts and misunderstandings, and consequently disrupting

partnerships and ending coopetition initiatives. This was confirmed by the research of Chowdhury et al. (2016),

in which the researchers point out that if rivals fail to distinguish between the paradoxical forces of cooperation

and competition (Raza-Ullah, 2020), a number of negative effects can occur, such as tensions and lower levels

of productivity. It is therefore necessary to manage coopetition carefully (Crick, 2020). For managers, this skill

or the lack of it may be a barrier to establishing and developing coopetition.

The literature review also reveals that although it is uncertainty that encourages competitors to cooperate,

coopetition is characterized by a high degree of opportunistic behaviour (Morris et al., 2007), sudden twists

(Bouncken et al., 2018), tensions (Tidström, 2014) and even a short-term horizon of action (Tidström, 2014).

This may be due to divergences in the strategies of the entities involved, divergences in the goals of the parties,

or due to a rival's desire to achieve a better market position (Walley, 2007). Also, the example of alliances

between enterprises, in which coopetition relationships are observable, proves that they are characterized by a

Patrycja Juszczyk

high degree of instability (Das, 2006). Although the studied alliances were created for a predetermined period of

time, and their dissolution was planned from the beginning of the cooperation between the partners, some of

them were dissolved or changed the structure of the partnership even before the common goals were achieved

(Solesvik & Gulbrandsen, 2013). Negative effects of coopetition have been observed in several industries and

environments, for example among family wine producers in the United States (Crick & Crick, 2021) and among

tour operators in Lithuania (Bagdoniene & Hopeniene, 2015). These can be considered as barriers to entering

into other coopetition relationships by experienced parties, or something that simply acts as a warning to other

organizations. Taking into account the resource premises of coopetition, Lechner et al. (2016) also point to the

barrier related to the lack of complementarity of resources, which usually intensifies competitive

interdependence between organizations, and to the risk of resource leakage (in particular knowledge leakage, as

noted above), which in turn generates reluctance to share resources, especially intangible ones. As emphasized

by Köseoğlu et al. (2019), common and equal access to all markets may also limit the development of

coopetition.

It should be added that the barriers to the establishment and development of coopetition typical for public

and non-profit organizations also include (Fathalikhani et al., 2018; Van den Broek et al., 2018): problems with

coopetition coordination (increased external coordination combined with a lack of managerial skills); leaving

the mission for which organizations were established as a result of too far-reaching adaptation to the partner;

loss of organizational identity due to too much involvement in coopetition (at the expense of one's own brand),

or the increasing number of duties resulting from maintaining a coopetition relationship, which, due to the

limited number and competence of the staff, discourages the development of cooperation between rivals and

causes less and less involvement of the partners.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

The article presents selective results of the field research conducted. The empirical research was

exploratory, and the research process used a qualitative, interpretative approach (Silverman, 2016). Exploratory

qualitative research enabled a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under

study, as well as its description. This made it possible to focus on its features, characteristics, processes and

meanings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018), as these were to be used to identify specific aspects of the problem under

study. The methodology used included qualitative research techniques with the use of qualitative research tools

(Bouncken et al., 2021).

The study used semi-structured, in-depth individual face-to-face interviews. A total of 42 interviews were

conducted - 22 with representatives of public museums and 20 interviews with representatives of private

museums. This number enabled achievement of the so-called saturation effect (Suddaby, 2006). The

interviewees were selected deliberately, taking into account such criteria as: (1) legal form of activity, (2)

simultaneous occurrence of cooperation and competition relationships in the activity of the museum, (3)

importance of the museum in Poland, (4) range of activity, (5) size of entity and (6) its activity. The

interviewees in the case of public museums were mainly directors, their deputies or proxies, and other senior

and middle-level managers. In the case of non-public museums, they were the founders, i.e. owners, or

presidents of associations or foundations, when the founder of the museum was an association or foundation.

Therefore, it should be recognized that in the context of the studied phenomena, the interlocutors were key

informants (Kumar et al., 1993).

The field research took place from January to July 2020. However, due to the announcement by the World

Health Organization of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the numerous government restrictions introduced as a

result, some of the interviews in March-June 2020 were conducted via online tools, each time using audio and

video. The total duration of all interviews is approximately 47 hours. The average interview duration is

approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes.

The interviews were recorded and field notes were taken at the end of the interviews. After collecting the

data, the research material was written down and transcripts of the interviews were made. The text after

transcription had a total of 909 pages. The content of the interviews was then encoded (Hammersley &

Atkinson, 2000) using the NVivo computer software. The coding of the empirical data was made using

deductive-inductive logic, so-called abduction (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003), i.e., connecting codes resulting

from the literature (deduction) with codes that appeared as a result of the analysis of the interview content

(induction).

The research used the so-called focused coding of categories, expanding the structure of the codes, and

finally creating their hierarchy. In the context of selectively presented research results, this article uses codes

related to the following aspects: (1) the importance of coopetition for the activities of cultural institutions, in

particular in museums; (2) antecedents to / motives for /stimulators of the establishment of coopetition among

museums; (3) antecedents of /motives for /stimulators of the coopetition development among museums; (4)

barriers to the establishment of coopetition among museums; (5) barriers to the development of coopetition

among museums.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

As Czernek (2015) emphasizes, it is important to include quotations from the interviews in the section

devoted to the research results as they give the text scientific validity. The findings of the research are presented

along with chosen quotations from the interviews so as to give a voice to the interviewees themselves, which at

the same time increases the credibility of the qualitative research and allows for a better understanding of the

research findings (Czernek-Marszałek, McCabe, 2022).

4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS

The research successfully identified and specified the stimulators and barriers to the establishment and

development of coopetition relationships by cultural institutions. The public and non-public museums whose

representatives were included in the study were characterized by both cooperation and competition

relationships, although their participation in the competition process was often unconscious – the interlocutors

did not treat one another as competitors (unconscious coopetition). Also, due to the fact that competition

generated pejorative associations, the representatives of museum institutions deliberately did not identify

activities undertaken by a certain entity as a competitive struggle. However, among the interlocutors there was

also a group that not only consciously entered into cooperation with competitors, but also had a specific goal

related to the activity of the museums they represented (emerging or intentional coopetition).

In total, 18 stimulators and 11 barriers were identified in relation to the museums covered by the study

establishing and developing coopetition relationships. It should be noted that the stimulators usually refer to the

establishment of a coopetition relationship, while the barriers appear more often both before and during the

coopetition. What is more, in some cases the identified stimulators to establishing coopetition relationships with

other museums also acted as barriers. An example is the establishment of coopetition relations as a result of their

initiation by authorities at various levels – this stimulator was revealed only in the case of public museums.

These were also examples of obligatory coopetition enforced by political decision-makers, which meant that the

coopetition had a short time horizon and usually did not bring benefits, which determined the treatment of this

type of stimulator to establishing coopetition relationships as a barrier as well.

4.1 Stimulators of Coopetition among Cultural Institutions

Analysis of the empirical material showed the existence of a set of stimulators to coopetition among public

and private museums, representing the public sector and the non-profit sector respectively. These are presented

in Table 1 and they are then discussed in the order in which they are listed in the table in the further

considerations in this section.

Table 1. Stimulators to establishing and developing coopetition relationships among public and private

museums

No.

Stimulator of coopetition

Better meeting the needs of diverse and demanding audiences. Desire to reach new audiences.

Opportunity to exchange experiences, knowledge, skills and abilities.

Synergy effect in the area of competence, experience and knowledge (creating innovative ideas).

Maximizing the use of limited resources.

Increasing the dynamics of activities in the implementation of the mission and goals.

Possibility of obtaining external funds for the implementation of specific tasks.

Possibility to overcome own organizational shortcomings.

Similarity of actions and activities.

Increasing social legitimacy.

10.

Reducing operating costs, including those related to uncertainty.

11.

Local identity/location similarity.

12.

Coopetition initiated by other institutions (e.g., cultural institutes).

13.

Coopetition initiated by the organizer (local authorities at various levels and state authorities).

14.

The prestige of cooperation with a competitor.

15.

Social pressure.

16.

Organization of joint industry events.

17.

Willingness to support, help, transfer knowledge to smaller, less prestigious entities.

18.

Lobbying to change the law.

Source: own elaboration

One of the stimulators of coopetition among cultural institutions presented in Table 1 for public and private

museums was better meeting the needs of diverse and demanding recipients, which was also related to the desire

to reach a new audience. As the interlocutors pointed out, limited museum collections, a profiled area of

activity, and also the limited budgets of the institution were an obstacle to independently building a cultural

offer that was more attractive and more extensive, and that evoked emotions in contemporary recipients.

Patrycja Juszczyk

Every now and then something needs to be changed in this museum. Exhibit something less, something

more, change something, because if we don't do it, unfortunately no one will come to us, because they won't look

at the same thing all the time, right? And then this cooperation, even with a competitor, makes sense and it

seems to me that it is beginning, that is the reason for cooperation between museums. Such an exchange of

artifacts, well, exchange, such as to say, we cannot stand still. We need to create a better offer. [3NP]

Another stimulator to establishing coopetition relations, indicated relatively often by the interviewees, was

the possibility of exchanging experiences, knowledge, skills and abilities between coopetitors. The coopetition

relationships created facilitated the entities' access to new knowledge and the possibility of its assimilation.

Coopetition provided museums with more opportunities to exchange experiences, allowed for numerous and

valuable substantive consultations between the parties involved, and gave the opportunity to acquire new

competences and skills.

The third of the identified stimulators (see Table 1.) due to which museums undertook a coopetition

relationship was the achievement of the synergy effect in the area of competence, experience and knowledge,

and the related generation of innovative ideas. This aspect is also related to the previous one that refers to the

exchange of experience and knowledge, because, as a result of mutual observations and learning, museums have

activated creativity, allowing them to jointly create innovative ideas using the capabilities of cultural

institutions. This is confirmed by the statement of a senior manager of one of the public museums in Lesser

Poland:

The exchange of experience, the exchange of knowledge and good practices is conducive to innovation, just

in our area. [13P]

It should be noted, however, that the creation of innovative ideas was possible only when each of the

museums used knowledge-sharing mechanisms, which means that the sharing of ideas was not one-sided.

The research also showed that another stimulus to establishing cooperation with a competitor was the

possibility of maximizing the use of limited resources. Coopetition allowed museums to take full advantage of

the limited financial resources, human resources and exhibitions that museums had at their disposal. For

example, joint organization of an exhibition involved the use of smaller financial resources on the part of a

single entity. The time and involvement of employees was divided between the two institutions, while the

combined exhibitions of the two museums made a greater impression on recipients than using the exhibits of a

single museum:

We cannot ignore the financial effects of cooperation with competitors, because we are always limited with

a budget that, let's face it, is never sensational. It's simply easier to organize a project when you combine

resources. [4P]

In addition, the interviewees also confirmed that cooperation with a competitor allows them to more

dynamically pursue their social goals and the goals resulting from the Act on Museums. This is quite an

important finding, as it confirms the often-repeated claim in the private sector that coopetition allows entities to

achieve partially convergent cooperative goals and divergent competitive goals. The same mechanism has also

been observed in the case of cultural institutions, both in the public and non-profit sector.

Moderator: "So, do you also take into account the social effects of working with competitors?"

Interviewee: "There's no denying that the social results that we get are important to us, right? Sometimes

in such cooperation it is possible to achieve certain goals faster." [1P]

Another important and relatively frequently quoted motive for establishing cooperation between competing

museums was the possibility of obtaining external funds for the implementation of specific tasks. The limited

budgets at the disposal of cultural institutions, in particular private museums, pushed museums into coopetition,

the aim of which was to obtain external funds. It should be noted here that the representatives of private

museums indicated that due to the unfavourable provisions of ministerial competitions, they were deprived of

the chance to apply for numerous subsidies from structural funds, etc. Their entering into coopetition in order to

obtain external funds was also caused by the formal requirements of many competitions. This problem

concerned public museums in particular. Coopetition with an experienced partner with specific resources

increased the chances of obtaining co-financing for a certain project from external funds. In addition, in the vast

majority of cases, the provisions of the competitions were constructed in such a way that a single entity could

not receive a subsidy, as all kinds of partnerships serving the implementation of a project were rated more

highly. Such provisions were also dominant in various types of EU programmes, under which subsidies were

awarded for conducting cultural activities:

In many cases, it is not even a requirement, because it is actually formally necessary to indicate partners,

so it is a formal requirement, but even if there was no such requirement, well, if we want to prepare the project

well in terms of content, we must look for partners. We have to use their knowledge, competence and experience

to implement it in the best possible way, and yes - this cooperation with competitors takes place here (...). [8P]

Another stimulator to establishing coopetition relationships between museums was the possibility of

overcoming their own organizational shortcomings. In other words, coopetition was helpful in overcoming

museums' organizational problems related, for example, to the organization of exhibitions. Organizational

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

shortcomings included a lack of sufficient technical tools, appropriate staff, appropriate management decisions

or the equipment needed to organize specific cultural events. The frequency of organizational deficiencies

determined the quality of work and, consequently, the attitude of people to work and their supervisors, hence the

possibility of overcoming organizational problems prompted museums to cooperate with competitors:

Yes, of course, it's easier for us to organize an attractive exhibition together (...). It's just easier if we want

to bring, or, for example, import a large exhibition from abroad. It is easier to divide the costs or organize

transport, arrange insurance, agree on where this exhibition will be presented and generally implement such a

project. [12NP]

Another factor stimulating cooperation between museums and competitors was the similarity of actions and

activities of the entities. The similarities in the activities of museums often also resulted from geographical

(location) similarities, as well as similarities in missions, goals or programmes of activities. Competing

museums, thanks to the existing analogies of operation, implemented joint initiatives in a more competitive

manner, and showed greater understanding towards each other and more effective implementation of joint tasks.

According to the research, museums also entered into cooperation with competitors in order to increase

their social legitimacy. Coopetition was supposed to ensure that the entities involved obtained a certain degree

of social support as a result of the implementation of certain values shared by a given community. Gaining

greater social legitimacy also allowed museums to be more credible in the fight for certain values, or in taking a

stand on specific social problems:

Moderator: "Do you think cultural institutions, in particular museums, cooperate with competing cultural

institutions?"

Interviewee: “I think so. These are difficult collaborations, but they often mean prestige, greater firepower,

impact, attracting social attention, showing that you are active in a certain area.” [18P]

The next stimulator to coopetition among museums mentioned by the interviewees was the possibility of

reducing costs, and uncertainty related to the activities of museum institutions. Cooperation with a competitor,

according to the respondents, helped to spread the risk and reduce the costs of providing public and social

services, but also contributed to reducing the risk of partners’ opportunistic behaviour through monitoring

mechanisms and the use of an information sharing approach:

Lower costs? Sure. We go hand in hand as other directors and I, we like each other. Some people are a

little weird, but everyone is a little weird. It's always best to cooperate when you're on similar wavelengths and

there's some business to do. [14NP]

Often, the coopetition relationship also resulted in long-term reciprocity between museum representatives,

which was related to the continuation of market transaction benefits e.g. in the form of reducing information

costs or stimulating innovative activities in the field of culture.

Interestingly, local identity and location similarity were also stimulators to museums establishing

coopetition relationships. Operating in the same local or regional environment was conducive to establishing

cooperation between competitors, not only due to the close location of the entities' seats, enabling the joint

provision of a cultural offer in a given area, but also, and in some cases primarily, for reasons of creating a

cultural offer focused on building a sense of cultural belonging, local/regional identity, and thus spreading

common traditions and cultural values

We cooperate with the nearest museums in the area, especially with the Museum in Chrzanów (name of the

city). We do some actions together, for example, the Night of Museums or joint workshops. That’s the way it is.

We would rather not reach beyond Płaza and Chrzanów (names of the cities), because in fact, the most intense

cooperation is happening here, at this local level.” [5NP]

Another factor that stimulated museums to enter into coopetition was the initiation of such relations by

other external institutions. Examples were the initiatives of various cultural institutes inviting people to

cooperate on a certain project. This cooperation often involved cooperation with a competitor or several

competitors, while rejecting a proposal to participate in some project entailed the possibility of exclusion from

certain circles that were important in the museum environment, or even being deprived of the possibility of

obtaining certain benefits.

There are also cases where cooperation with competitors was the result of decisions of organizers financing

the activities of museums - local government authorities at various levels - hence this motive was revealed only

in the case of public museums. Coopetition relationships were initiated by local government, provincial or state

authorities due to certain political circumstances or the social goals guiding the organizers. These were

examples of obligatory coopetition, enforced by political decision-makers. In these cases, it was about the

influence of the pressure of political decision-makers:

We are in the structures of the Lesser Poland Voivodeship and the governing body there seems to require

us to cooperate with other museums from this province, often with museums from Krakow, because there is the

largest concentration of museums here. [22P]

Another stimulator to coopetition among museums was the prestige of cooperation with a given

competitive entity. The interviewees emphasized the point that, when deciding to cooperate with a certain

Patrycja Juszczyk

competitor, they took into account the importance of the partner's experience and its prestige in the museum

industry. According to the research, less significant museums in the industry were looking for a partner with an

established position and valued in the museum environment, cooperation with which added credibility, and

enabled smaller entities to build their brand and prestige both in the eyes of the audience and in the museum

industry itself. As the interlocutors emphasized: "image issues play a very important role" [4NP].

Social pressure is another stimulator to coopetition among public and private museums identified in the

research. Some of the interviewees claimed that they felt external pressure to start cooperation with some

competitors. This pressure came from the recipients' environment, hence establishing cooperation with a

competitor was aimed at meeting social expectations:

Sometimes we feel such social pressure - that is, let's enter into cooperation relationships with another

museum - our region or the community surrounding us ... this is informal pressure, of course. They would like

my museum to have good cooperation with various great museums from Silesia ... we feel that. Of course,

sometimes, for example, some articles that appear in the press directly relate to that, but these are also

expectations that people leave for us in visitor books or in various comments via social media. [3P]

Another factor stimulating cooperation between competing museums was the willingness to jointly

organize industry events. These events mainly took the form of cyclical museum conferences, addressed to

people employed in museums. On the basis of the research observations, it should be added that these

conferences were of great importance to the interlocutors, as their organization had a positive impact on the

image of the museums involved, and helped build their position in the community. The complementary

resources, competences and knowledge of the competing entities allowed for a functional division of roles and

responsibilities of the organizers, as well as efficient coordination of the organization of the event.

Another, quite surprising, stimulus to establishing coopetition was the willingness to support, provide

assistance or transfer knowledge to smaller, less prestigious museum entities. This theme was revealed mainly,

but not only, among private museums. In the case of private museums, it was usually about helping newly

established entities at the beginning of their activities. This assistance was related to the preparation of

documentation and registration of monuments, but also the transfer of knowledge related to management

activities. Public museums also felt they had a mission to help smaller museums. Entering into cooperation with

smaller, but still competitive, entities was treated in terms of playing the role of an educator or image support:

National museums should take partners for cooperation who are a little weaker than themselves, to

promote them, train them, teach them. This should also be an educational role, to show how to work in our

industry. [19P]

The last stimulator identified as a result of the research, which is characteristic mainly of private museums,

was lobbying for legal changes. Private museums cooperated in the joint development of good industry

practices, applying for the interpretation of certain legal provisions to the competent ministry, consulting

changes in the scope of new legal regulations, and jointly submitting proposals for changes to the applicable

law. First of all, they cooperated to represent a common voice before the government as a private museologist

community:

Our partnership with the museum next door was created, above all, to articulate the common voice of these

private museum communities, which has been so little heard so far. [2NP]

It should be noted that the presented stimulators to establishing coopetition relationships among cultural

institutions – public and private museums – are not always inseparable. The research demonstrated, for example,

that both the theme of the similarity of activities as well as the possibility to obtain external funds were

important in the decision on whether to cooperate with a competitor.

4.2 Barriers to Coopetition among Cultural Institutions

Despite the existence of many objective stimulators encouraging museums to cooperate with rivals, the

interviewees also pointed to barriers related to both establishing and developing coopetition relations. These can

be considered as specific to the entities representing the cultural sector included in the study. Table 2 is a

synthesis of the research results in this area. Each of the barriers is referred to in turn in the later considerations.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 2. Barriers to establishing and developing coopetition relationships among public and private

museums

No.

Barrier to coopetition

Opportunistic acquisition and use of knowledge, ideas and information developed by another entity.

Concealment of knowledge or information held by an entity.

Lack of reciprocity in the exchange of resources or hindering access to resources.

Lack of trust.

Local antagonisms.

Lack of local identity/lack of location similarity.

Short horizon of action when coopetition was initiated by the organizer (local authorities of various levels

and state authorities).

Interpersonal conflicts.

Transitivity of hostile relations, resulting in treating the entity with which one has a direct relationship as a

competitor.

10.

Differences in organizational nature and in the implemented activities.

11.

Reluctance due to organizational and legal form.

Source: own elaboration

When it comes to the barriers to establishing and developing coopetition relationships between cultural

institutions presented in Table 2, representatives of public and private museums relatively often indicated that

they were prevented from establishing coopetition by the possibility of the undesirable effect of spreading

knowledge or ideas. This is related to the so-called paradox of openness, meaning that the risk of undesirable

spread of knowledge and opportunism increases with partners' openness and knowledge sharing.

The interviewees were afraid that cooperation with a competitor might involve opportunistic acquisition

and use of knowledge, ideas and information developed by themselves. Behaviour in this manner is most often

caused by the desire to achieve a better competitive position in a relatively short time. As one of the respondents

claimed, information entrusted in confidence regarding the purchase of another exhibit was used by another

museologist to enrich his own collection:

A man boasted that he was buying such a motorcycle, so such scumbags went to the gentleman: "Hello, I'm

from [surname], [surname] said he isn't buying it." And they sold him the motorcycle. The man comes along in a

week " What did you come for?" "Come on, to buy that motorcycle." "Oh, Wacek [name] was here and he said

you weren’t buying it so he took it" And that's how it ended.[11NP]

In addition, as the director of one of the public museums admitted, in her daily work, she more and more

often reminds her employees not to share information related to ongoing projects with employees representing a

cooperating museum as part of their contacts. This barrier concerns both establishing and developing coopetition

relationships.

Excessive protection of knowledge, and even open concealment of information in relation to another entity,

also became a barrier to the development of coopetition between partners. At the same time, it should be

emphasized that among the resources that museums most often share as part of coopetition are intangible

resources, which include knowledge, information and experience in the field of art, and administration and

management related to e.g., research, education, conservation, marketing or publishing, hence the indicated

barrier is of great importance from the point of view of museums. Concealing knowledge or information

paralyzes further cooperation between competitors and may lead to strengthening competition to such an extent

that coopetition itself makes no sense:

Well, I had a situation where I just couldn't say everything. Once, I didn't trust them and twice, it took me

years to figure it out and I said straight: listen, Henia [name], this is valuable knowledge for me and I won't tell

you everything I know about this tank. You don't even know how angry she was. I don't understand because I

think I did the right thing. And then there were rumours around me, she took revenge on me, she did everything

that we did, she even made leaflets for herself to make her events stand out. She wanted to prove something to

me. [19NP]

Barriers related to resources are also associated with the lack of reciprocity in the exchange of resources, or

making access to them more difficult. Examples of such behaviour in practice include prolonging the formal

settlement of matters, imposing non-obligatory costs, or denying access to non-strategic resources held by

another museum. Due to the lack of interdependence based on the sharing of complementary resources and

mutual benefit, which is a value for coopetitors, coopetition was not a mutually satisfying relationship for

museums at that time. This barrier usually appeared during the coopetition relationship and was often the result

of tensions or interpersonal conflicts that appeared between the representatives of the entities involved in the

coopetition.

Another barrier to establishing and developing coopetition between cultural institutions identified in the

research was the limited or lack of trust between potential partners or coopetitors. At the same time, it should be

noted that a lack of trust is an immanent feature of the relationship between public and private museums. The

Patrycja Juszczyk

limited trust of representatives of public museums in relation to private museums should be emphasized, as well

as the treatment of public museums by private museums in the category of entities from outside the environment

that cannot be trusted:

Listen, if there is no trust, there is no cooperation. We, private museologists, do not work with those who

do not know what to do with money, they waste it but they have a lot of money. I don't trust them. I do not

believe them, I repeat. To sum up, these are otherwise normal people who have bats in the belfry. This is how I

pigeonholed them and there is no cooperation here. [14NP]

It should be added, however, that limited or no trust also existed between entities from the same sector and

was often based on the general reputation of a certain entity in the industry environment.

Interestingly, local antagonisms were also a barrier to establishing cooperation between competing cultural

institutions, and influenced the perception of entities representing a different local identity as clear competitors.

This is confirmed by the statement of a private museum owner in the Lublin province:

So, for example, Janów [name of the city] has never liked Kraśnik [name of the city], and Kraśnik [name of

the city] does not like Janów, because Janów does not like Biłgoraj [name of the city] etc. (…) This causes

reluctance among the people managing the museum in Kraśnik, the museum in Janów and the museum in

Biłgoraj. And those museums will also fight for offers, for recipients, for everything. It's such stupidity. That's

right, this is our Polish playground. [10NP]

The lack of a sense of the same local identity became another barrier to coopetition between museums.

As was emphasized, the most intensive cooperation between museologists took place at the local level, which

was important for shaping the local identity of the museums involved. When the entities functioned in places

that are attractive to tourists, these activities were expressed in mutual recommendations to clients (tourists). At

the same time, they also served to popularize the activities of museums in the tourist region, and thus enrich the

tourist offer of the region. The lack of location similarity became a barrier to establishing cooperation between

competing entities, especially in the case of museums whose activity (mission) was aimed at popularizing the

history of a certain city, culture or region.

On the other hand, coopetition initiated by the organizers financing the activities of museums was generally

characterized by a high degree of instability, and its dissolution was planned from the beginning of the

cooperation between rivals, which is a barrier to the development of coopetition. A short action horizon was

visible, especially when the coopetition relationships dissolved before the achievement of common goals. Local

government and political conditions in the case of public museums became a source of destruction of the

benefits jointly achieved by the coopetition partners. In turn, when it comes to private museums, in exchange for

certain benefits related to access to resources, as part of top-down coopetition these organizations undertook

activities aimed only at an economic goal (reducing costs), which resulted in tensions, conflicts and resulted in

the duration of the coopetition relationship being relatively short:

This cooperation is most often directed or delegated to specific issues or activities, so it is only formal.

People often don't want to work together under these conditions. It is sometimes the case that the goal of the

commissioned task is not even achieved, because everything falls apart before then. [6P]

Another barrier to the development of coopetition indicated by the interviewees is interpersonal conflicts

between representatives of the museums involved. These conflicts took place both at the management level and

between employees of specific departments of the cooperating museums, and had a negative impact, especially

on the development of coopetition and its results. The interviewees emphasized that interpersonal conflicts,

which most often took place between museum directors, had a negative impact on existing coopetition, causing

it to stagnate or even ending the relationship:

I mean, what I can say is that management conflict situations can definitely cause some coopetition to stop.

This is what happens and this is what I have observed. [4P]

Interestingly, the research has revealed another barrier to establishing coopetition relationships related to

the previous one, that is the so-called transitivity of the relationship, where a hostile interpersonal relationship

between X and Y affected the interpersonal relationship between Y and Z. As claimed by the owner of a private

museum, negative personal relationships between the owners/directors of museums X and Y translated into

negative, sometimes even hostile, emotions of the owner/director of museum Z toward Y. This hostility

manifested itself in the strengthening of competitive behaviour by the representative of a certain museum in

relation to a museum which the entity had befriended, which resulted in negative relations and reduced the

chances of coopetition to a minimum.

Also, the awareness of other action and activities or organizational differences became an obstacle to

establishing cooperation between rivals from the museum industry. Museums naturally sought to create links

with entities that implement similar initiatives or represent a similar profile of activity. This is related to the

desire to learn and improve the business. When potential coopetitors did not notice the indicated similarities,

they were not interested in a relationship that would not bring them the expected results.

The last of the identified barriers to coopetition relations between the museums studied was the reluctance

to cooperate with a rival representing a different organizational and legal form. In practice, this relates to the

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

previously mentioned conflict between public and private museums. Mutual reluctance, a sense of injustice and

unequal treatment constituted a significant barrier to coopetition:

All the competitions organized by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage are such competitions that

can be safely called rigged, i.e., dishonest, where we, as private museums, have no chance to obtain anything.

All funds go to state museums, which spend this money. It is here that there is definitely unfair competition and

a dishonest approach to the subject. How am I supposed to work with such people? Never with any public

museum. They're just typical competitors. [11NP]

It should be emphasized that the above-mentioned barriers may occur individually or be related to each

other, e.g., interpersonal conflicts may result in hostile relations, and thus, in the industry environment they may

cause hostility or concealment of knowledge and information.

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The aim of this study was to identify the stimulators and barriers to coopetition in non-commercial

organizations based on the example of cultural institutions (museums). This paper contributes to the

development of the coopetition research by providing an answer to the question of what encourages and

stimulates non-commercial organizations to undertake and develop coopetition, but also what the barriers are to

establishing or developing such coopetition relationships.

The answer to RQ1 “What are the stimulators to establishing and developing coopetition in non-profit

organizations based on the example of cultural institutions” covers a list of 18 stimuli (see Table 1.). Overall,

most of the identified stimuli are identified in coopetition literature referring to commercial entities (e.g. better

meeting the needs of diverse and demanding audiences, the opportunity to exchange experiences, knowledge,

skills and abilities; maximizing the use of limited resources, synergy effect in the area of competence,

experience and knowledge (creating innovative ideas), the possibility of overcoming one's own organizational

shortcomings, reducing operating costs, including those related to uncertainty) (Padula & Dagnino, 2008; Raza-

Ullah et al., 2014; Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Dorn et al., 2016; Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2017;

Gernsheimer et al., 2021).

It should be noted, however, that the stimuli identified as a result of the research extend the scope of the

commercial sector stimulants identified in the literature. Due to the subject of the transaction with the

environment – public and social goods, a specific mission of the entity or the nature of the purpose of action,

which is a social goal (Kong, 2008) - the identified stimuli characteristic of non-commercial organizations

include: the desire to increase social legitimacy, a sense of local identity or location similarities, social pressure,

willingness to support, help and transfer knowledge to smaller, less prestigious entities or lobbying for changes

in legal regulations concerning the cultural sector. Thus, it should be noted that the stimulators of coopetition

identified for the first time refer to factors anchored in institutional theory, which was proposed as an

appropriate framework for examining the impact of both the cultural and spatial context on the activities of

organizations (Welter, 2011). It should be added that in the case of, for example, social legitimacy, social

pressure or a sense of local identity or location similarities, we are dealing with institutional economic and

sociological theories, which indicate that the individual behaviour of non-commercial organizations is structured

by the rules and norms prevailing in the institutional environment. This means that institutional contexts can

enable and constrain individual behaviour, while at the same time being dependent on it (Scott, 1995; Hodgson,

2006). It can therefore be concluded that those factors in the case of non-commercial organizations constitute an

important source of incentives for coopetition, and therefore coopetition is determined by social and institutional

norms of acceptability (Scott, 2010). It is worth emphasizing that among the identified stimuli there were also

those indicated earlier by Mariani (2018), and concerning organizations from the cultural sector, i.e. initiating

coopetition by the organizer (local authorities at various levels and state authorities). Mariani (2018) pointed to

the influence of external stakeholders, such as policy makers, who can be considered as local authorities and

organizers (entities financing) of cultural institutions. The conducted research in the field of initiated coopetition

also indicates initiating coopetition by other cultural centres as part of cooperation on a specific project,

combining the knowledge and resources of various units. Participation in such projects is important for cultural

organizations, as it translates into the recognition of a given institution in the industry environment (Finkel et al.,

2017). In addition, one of the tasks of contemporary non-commercial organizations is – as indicated in the

literature – managing relationships with public and private partners in order to use the resources owned by

organizations for the benefit of the community for which the non-profit organization operates (Bovaird &

Löffler, 2015).

When it comes to (RQ2): What are the barriers to establishing and developing coopetition in non-profit

organizations based on the example of cultural institutions? the analysis of the research material made it

possible to identify 11 barriers to establishing and developing coopetition among non-commercial organizations

(see Table 2). Some of these have so far been identified in the literature on the subject, mainly from the

perspective of enterprises, i.e. opportunistic acquisition and use of knowledge, ideas and information developed

by another entity (Morris et al., 2007; Crick, 2020; Czakon & Czernek-Marszałek, 2021), concealment of

Patrycja Juszczyk

knowledge or information held by an entity (Ritala & Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen, 2013), lack of reciprocity in the

exchange of resources or hindering access to resources (Walley, 2007; Hückstädt, 2022), lack of trust (Raza-

Ullah et al., 2014; Crick et al., 2022), interpersonal conflicts (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Czakon & Czernek-

Marszałek, 2021). It is also worth emphasizing that representatives of cultural institutions in their statements did

not emphasize the tensions that may occur at the individual, organizational and inter-organizational level (Raza-

Ullah et al., 2014), arising as a result of emotions in the paradoxical relationships of coopetition. On the other

hand, they emphasized the importance of the transitivity of hostile relationships, resulting in treating the entity

with which the direct relationship is formed as a competitor.

Among the newly identified barriers to coopetition typical of non-commercial organizations, in particular

of cultural institutions, the following were found: local antagonisms, a lack of a sense of local identity (treating

representatives of a different local identity as clear competitors) or a lack of similarity of location (an obstacle to

the implementation of the mission of spreading the historical values of the region), reluctance to enter into

coopetition due to the organizational and legal form (conflict between public and private entities) and short

action horizon due to initiation of coopetition by the organizer financing the activities of the institution (local

authorities at various levels and state authorities). These barriers, as in the case of stimulators, refer to

sociological and institutional theories of coopetition, which have so far been rarely discussed in the coopetition

literature (Dorn et. al, 2016; Gernsheimer et al., 2021). Local antagonisms, local identity or similarity of

location refer to an individual's knowledge of belonging to specific social groups, along with a certain emotional

and value-holding meaning for him of belonging to this group, and thus to the concept of social identity (Turner,

1975; Hogg, 2016) embedded in sociological and anthropological theory (Cohen, 1986). This reveals

completely new findings regarding the barriers to coopetition, also referring to psychological motivations

leading the manager to approve or disavow existing group membership (Turner, 1996), which is also reflected in

the mentioned reluctance to coopetition concluded with entities from the public or private sector. It can

therefore be concluded that cognitive factors arising from the accentuation of intergroup differences in non-

commercial organizations constitute one of the main sources of barriers to establishing coopetition. The research

results revealed that among the newly identified barriers there was also a short horizon of action due to the

initiation of cooperation by the organizer financing the activities of the institution (local authorities at various

levels and state authorities). The indicated barrier relating to the short horizon of action has been described in

the literature (Tidström, 2014), but as an effect of environmental uncertainty, and not as a result of local and

state authorities forcing cooperative actions.

It should be emphasized that the dominant theoretical perspective revealed in the research material in the

context of the emergence and development of coopetition by cultural institutions is the resource-based approach

(Wernerfelt, 1984). The priority is the willingness to own and use a unique set of resources (tangible and

intangible), offering recipients a proposal of higher value than other cultural institutions.

Additionally, when it comes to the specificity of the industry, the research revealed that as a result of the

dynamic development of the cultural sector, and also the resulting changes in the cultural institutions

themselves, such as the way of managing, creating and implementing action programmes, as well as due to

limited financial resources and thus development, institutions are also forced to look for partnerships among

entities with which they compete. For example, museums usually function in a specific environment,

influencing that environment and creating numerous connections with it. The activities of cultural institutions

concern not only direct visitors and users, but also broadly understood stakeholders, which include, among

others, public authorities at various levels, the local community, tourists, tourism enterprises, scientists, local

entrepreneurs, organizations associating history lovers, and the media. As this research shows, this environment

creates stimulators (e.g., social pressure, local identity or lobbying for changes in the law) or barriers (e.g.,

transitivity of hostile relations, local antagonisms, top-down initiation) to establishing and developing

cooperation with competing entities. When it comes to the level of dyads, the stimulants should be pointed out

which relate, for example, to the previous experience of cooperation with a given partner, the similarity of

actions and activities between coopetitors, or the prestige of cooperation with a given competitor. In turn,

interpersonal conflicts, lack of trust, or the opportunistic behaviour of a coopetitor constitute barriers to

coopetition. When considering the stimulators and barriers to coopetition at the individual level, the

interlocutors emphasized, among others, the importance of individual emotions (jealousy, sympathy, etc.),

resulting in, for example, reluctance to cooperate with a competing public or private entity, or the importance of

acquiring knowledge and information (the importance of access to resources).

The newly identified stimulators and barriers to coopetition result from the specificity of the functioning of

cultural institutions, which primarily take into account the local needs of the communities/recipients for whom

they exist. The mentioned "multi-product" character of contemporary cultural entities (Del Chiappa et al., 2014)

should be emphasized, as they offer a wide range of services related to education and spending free time, as well

as those that are less visible to visitors but constitute an important, necessary aspect of the activity of such

institutions (creating and storing collections, research and scientific activity or conservation work). The diversity

of cultural institutions means that existing theories on the basis of management – including strategic

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

management – should be tested, modified or expanded, especially when it comes to well-recognized phenomena

such as inter-organizational cooperation, competition or coopetition.

It should be emphasized that coopetition theory still has many dark spots in terms of the theoretical

underpinnings of the entire concept. The present study attempts to bridge these theoretical gaps by presenting

the stimulators and barriers to coopetition in non-commercial organizations.

5.1 Managerial Implications

The results presented in this study can be helpful for the managers and practitioners of non-commercial

entities. Firstly, managers of non-profit organizations, in particular cultural institutions, should understand that

coopetition, in addition to cooperation, may be necessary for development and survival, as well as being a real

strategy for generating and appropriating value, but also passing it on to recipients. Secondly, the presented

results of the research on the stimulators and barriers of coopetition can be seen as a justification for adopting a

coopetition strategy – managers would know how to manage coopetition from the individual, dyad and inter-

organizational perspective and how to develop coopetition and its results, paying more attention to e.g. the

previous experience of cooperation with a given partner, the similarity of actions and activities between

cooperating partners, and the development of social relationships. On the other hand, in order to achieve greater

benefits from coopetition, they would pay more attention to the partner's opportunistic behaviour or avoid

interpersonal conflicts. Thirdly, managers of non-commercial organizations are recommended to apply aspects

of entrepreneurial behaviour such as: being creative, taking advantage of new opportunities and chances or

providing value to recipients of social services and products. Managers would also treat coopetition as an

opportunity coming from the environment to achieve additional benefits. Coopetition can help to achieve

positive results, especially when the organization does not have enough resources. Cooperation with relevant

rivals can increase market share, achieve a competitive advantage or create a better and more unique offer for

recipients. Fourthly, managers' efforts can focus on building trust, thanks to which a smooth flow of knowledge

between partners is possible. In addition, management may also design certain controls to address the

conflicting interests of both parties involved. What is more, the identified drivers and barriers could be useful in

the context of building or implementing an organization's strategy, dealing with the paradoxes resulting from

coopetition, as well as for using the implications of coopetition to stimulate the development of non-profit

organizations.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

This research has some limitations. Firstly, the subjects of the research were cultural institutions, which

have their own specificity, making the research closely related to a particular context. The stimulators and

barriers to establishing and developing coopetition in other types of cultural institutions (e.g., theatres or art

galleries) may be different, just as they may be different in various types of public and non-profit organizations.

This conclusion also applies to the implementation of the research results in sectors other than the cultural

sector. However, it should be noted that aspects related to inter-organizational issues, including coopetition

relations, are usually presented as conditioned by the sectoral or national context (Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah,

2016; Stentoft et al., 2018). Secondly, a large number of the interviews were conducted during the global

COVID-19 pandemic with the use of video communicators, which could have limited the understanding of the

attitudes and behaviours of the respondents in their natural environment. This is important in qualitative

research, and thus narrowed the research perspective due to the inability to experience the everyday life of the

respondents. However, this does not change the fact that interviews conducted remotely sometimes made it

possible to capture very subtle aspects resulting from the way the interlocutors communicated certain events, or

to gather interpretive and contextual data during the conversations. Thirdly, the research is unrepresentative;

some of the presented conclusions are only preliminary and it is necessary that these be confirmed or rejected

based on future quantitative research.

Summing up the limitations, the current stock of knowledge and research findings, it is recommended to

conduct further research on the stimulators and barriers to establishing and developing coopetition in other types

of cultural institutions, as well as in other industries of the private and public sectors, as these have not to date

been deeply explored (Meena et al. 2023). As a direction for future research, it is also worth considering in-

depth analyses on the impact of coopetition stimulators and barriers on the achieved coopetition effects (positive

and negative) and on the factors mitigating coopetition barriers, making it possible to expand the scope of

coopetition between partners. In the context of the conducted qualitative research, it seems particularly valuable

to conduct further research on the stimulators and barriers of coopetition in non-commercial entities with the use

of quantitative analysis methods.

Patrycja Juszczyk

REFERENCES

Andersson, S., & Evers, N. (2015). International opportunity recognition in international new ventures—a

dynamic managerial capabilities perspective. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13, 260-276.

Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the US television

ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829-1853.

Arenas, D., Hai, S., & De Bernardi, C. (2021). Coopetition among social enterprises: a three-level dynamic

motivated by social and economic goals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(1), 165-185.

Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. NYU Press,

New York, London.

Bagdoniene, L., & Hopeniene, R. (2015). Coopetition usefulness: what do the agents of Lithuanian travel trade

market think?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 824-829.

Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business Network s— to cooperate and compete

simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426.

Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel

understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 23-39.

Bérubé, J., & Gauthier, J. B. (2020). Coopetition in Projects in Cultural Industries. The Journal of Modern

Project Management, 7(4).

Bogner, W. C., & Barr, P. S. (2000). Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: A cognitive explanation

for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science, 11(2), 212-226.

Bouncken, R. B., & Fredrich, V. (2012). Coopetition: performance implications and management

antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(05), 1250028.

Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., Ritala, P., & Kraus, S. (2018). Coopetition in new product development

alliances: advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. British Journal of Management,

29(3), 391-410.

Bouncken, R. B., Qiu, Y., Sinkovics, N., & Kürsten, W. (2021). Qualitative research: extending the range with

flexible pattern matching. Review of Managerial Science, 15(2), 251-273.

Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (Eds.). (2015). Public management and governance. Routledge.

Brandes, O., Brege, S., Brehmer, P. O., & Lilliecreutz, J. (2007). Chambre separée in product development:

Vertically mediated coopetition in the automotive supply chain. International Journal of Automotive

Technology and Management, 7(2-3), 168-183.

Cassar, M. (2013). Environmental management: guidelines for museums and galleries. Routledge.

Cheng, S. W. (2006). Cultural goods creation, cultural capital formation, provision of cultural services and

cultural atmosphere accumulation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30, 263-286.

Chiambaretto, P., Gurău, C., & Le Roy, F. (2016). Coopetitive branding: Definition, typology, benefits and

risks. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 86-96.

Chim-Miki, A. F., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2017). The coopetition perspective applied to tourism destinations:

a literature review. Anatolia, 28(3), 381-393.

Chión, S. J., Charles, V., & Tavana, M. (2018). Impact of incentive schemes and personality-tradeoffs on two-

agent coopetition with numerical estimations. Measurement, 125, 182-195.

Chowdhury, I. N., Gruber, T., & Zolkiewski, J. (2016). Every cloud has a silver lining—Exploring the dark side

of value co-creation in B2B service networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 97-109.

Cohen, A. P. (Ed.). (1986). Symbolising boundaries: Identity and diversity in British cultures (No. 2).

Manchester University Press.

Cortese, D., Sinicropi, S., Pollifroni, M., & Cantino, V. (2021). “Coopetition” for Cultural Tourism: An

Accounting History Perspective. De Computis, Revista Española de Historia de la Contabilidad., 18(1),

157-168.

Crick, J. M. (2019). Moderators affecting the relationship between coopetition and company performance.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(2), 518-531.

Crick, J. M. (2020). The dark side of coopetition: When collaborating with competitors is harmful for company

performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(2), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-

01-2019-0057

Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2021). Coopetition and family-owned wine producers. Journal of Business Research,

135, 319–336.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2023). With a little help from my friends: the interaction between coopetition, an

entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &

Research, 29(4), 965-985.

Crick, J. M., Crick, D., & Chaudhry, S. (2022). The dark-side of coopetition: it’s not what you say, but the way

that you do it. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 30(1), 22-44.

Czakon, W. (2014). Koopetycja w rozwoju przedsiębiorstw high-tech [In:] A. Zakrzewska-Bielawska (ed.)

Koopetycja w rozwoju przedsiębiorstw high-tech. Determinanty i dynamika, Placet, Warszawa, 63–89.

Czakon, W., & Czernek, K. (2016). The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into network coopetition:

The case of tourism networks in Poland. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 64-74.

Czakon, W., & Czernek-Marszałek, K. (2021). Competitor perceptions in tourism coopetition. Journal of Travel

Research, 60(2), 312-335.

Czakon, W., Fernandez, A.-S., & Mina`, A. (2014). Editorial - from paradox to practice: The rise of coopetition

strategies. International Journal of Business Environment, 6(1), 1–10

Czakon, W., Klimas, P., & Mariani, M. (2020). Behavioral antecedents of coopetition: A synthesis and

measurement scale. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101875.

Czernek, K. (2015). Wprowadzenie do badań jakościowych w naukach o zarządzaniu (w:) W. Czakon (red.),

Podstawy metodologii badań w naukach o zarządzaniu. Oficyna Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa.

Czernek-Marszałek, K., & McCabe, S. (2022). Why qualitative papers get rejected by Annals of Tourism

Research?. Annals of Tourism Research, 92.

Dagnino, G. B., Le Roy, F., Yami, S., & Czakon, W. (2008). Strategie koopetycji–nowa forma dynamiki

międzyorganizacyjnej? Przegląd Organizacji, 6, 3-7.

Das, T. K. (2006). Strategic alliance temporalities and partner opportunism. British Journal of Management,

17(1), 1-21.

Del Chiappa, G., Andreu, L., & Gallarza, M. G. (2014). Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum.

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(4), 420-431.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research – 3rd. ed. Sage Publications,

U.S.A.

Devece, C., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2019). Coopetition as the new trend in inter-firm

alliances: literature review and research patterns. Review of Managerial Science, 13(2), 207-226.

Devetag, M. G. (2009). Coordination and trust as prerequisites of coopetition: experimental evidence.

in Coopetition Strategy. Routledge.

Dorn, S., Schweiger, B., & Albers, S. (2016). Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature

review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 34(5), 484-500.

Fathalikhani, S., Hafezalkotob, A., & Soltani, R. (2018). Cooperation and coopetition among humanitarian

organizations: A game theory approach. Kybernetes, 47(8), 1642-1663.

Fernandez, A. S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition

case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing

Management, 43(2), 222-235.

Fernandez, A.-S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2016). Managing tensions related to information in coopetition. Industrial

Marketing Management, 53, 66–76

Finkel, R., Jones, D., Sang, K., & Stoyanova Russell, D. (2017). Diversifying the creative: Creative work,

creative industries, creative identities. Organization, 24(3), 281-288.

Fredrich, V., Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2019). The race is on: Configurations of absorptive capacity,

interdependence and slack resources for interorganizational learning in coopetition alliances. Journal of

Business Research, 101, 862-868.

Gainer, B., & Padanyi, P. (2002). Applying the marketing concept to cultural organisations: an empirical study

of the relationship between market orientation and performance. International Journal of nonprofit and

voluntary sector marketing, 7(2), 182-193.

Galloway, S., & Dunlop, S. (2007). A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries in public

policy. International journal of cultural policy, 13(1), 17-31.

Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition research: towards a better understanding of

past trends and future directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(4), 492-

521.

Patrycja Juszczyk

Gast, J., Gundolf, K., Harms, R., & Collado, E. M. (2019). Knowledge management and coopetition: how do

cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge?. Industrial marketing

management, 77, 65-74.

Gernsheimer, O., Kanbach, D. K., & Gast, J. (2021). Coopetition research-A systematic literature review on

recent accomplishments and trajectories. Industrial Marketing Management, 96, 113-134.

Ghazinoory, S., Malekifar, S., Nasri, S., & Kousari, S. (2021). Visioning for cultural industries: CLA inspired

scenario method. Futures, 131, 102770.

Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. (2009). Co‐opetition and technological innovation in small and medium‐sized

enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of small business management, 47(3), 308-330.

Gnyawali, D. R., Madhavan, R., He, J., & Bengtsson, M. (2016). The competition–cooperation paradox in inter-

firm relationships: A conceptual framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 7-18.

Grafton, J., & Mundy, J. (2017). Relational contracting and the myth of trust: Control in a co-opetitive setting.

Management Accounting Research, vol.36, 24-42.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2000). Metody badań terenowych. Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka, Poznań.

Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions?. Journal of economic issues, 40(1), 1-25.

Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. Springer International Publishing

Hückstädt, M. (2022). Coopetition between frenemies–interrelations and effects of seven collaboration problems

in research clusters. Scientometrics, 127(9), 5191-5224.

Hung, S. W., & Chang, C. C. (2012). A co-opetition perspective of technology alliance governance modes.

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(7), 679-696.

Juszczyk, P. (2021). Relacje społeczne w koopetycji muzeów. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w

Katowicach, Katowice.

Kallmuenzer, A., Zach, F. J., Wachter, T., Kraus, S., & Salner, P. (2021). Antecedents of coopetition in small

and medium-sized hospitality firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 99, 103076.

Kong, E. (2008). The development of strategic management in the non‐profit context: Intellectual capital in

social service non‐profit organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 281-299.

Köseoğlu, M. A., Yildiz, M., Okumus, F., & Barca, M. (2019). The intellectual structure of coopetition: past,

present and future. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(1), 2-29.

Kramer, R. M., Kramer, R. M., & Wilensky, H. L. (1981). Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. University of

California Press, U.S.A.

Kraus, S., Klimas, P., Gast, J., & Stephan, T. (2018). Sleeping with competitors: Forms, antecedents and

outcomes of coopetition of small and medium-sized craft beer breweries. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(1), 50-66.

Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key

informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633-1651.

Kylänen, M., & Rusko, R. (2011). Unintentional coopetition in the service industries: The case of Pyhä-Luosto

tourism destination in the Finnish Lapland. European Management Journal, 29(3), 193-205.

Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents:

A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110-141.

Le Roy, F., & Czakon, W. (2016). Managing coopetition: the missing link between strategy and performance.

Industrial Marketing Management, vol.53(1), 3-6.

Le Roy, F., & Sanou, F. H. (2014). Does coopetition strategy improve market performance? An empirical study

in mobile phone industry. Journal of Economics and Management, (17), 64-92.

Le Roy, F., Fernandez, A. S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2018). From strategizing coopetition to managing

coopetition. The Routledge companion to coopetition strategies, 58-68.

Lechner, C., Soppe, B., & Dowling, M. (2016). Vertical coopetition and the sales growth of young and small

firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 67-84.

Lorgnier, N., & Su, C. J. (2017). Considering coopetition strategies in sport tourism networks: A look at the

nonprofit nautical sports clubs on the northern coast of France. Value co-creation in sport management, 97-

120.

Lundgren-Henriksson, E. L., & Kock, S. (2016). A sensemaking perspective on coopetition. Industrial

Marketing Management, 57, 97-108.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Lyons, M. (2020). Third sector: The contribution of nonprofit and cooperative enterprise in Australia.

Routledge, London.

Margolis, J. (2009). Culture and Cultural Entities: Toward a New Unity of Science. Springer Netherlands.

Mariani, M. (2018) The role of policy makers and regulators in coopetition. In: Fernandez, A.-S., Chiambaretto,

P., Le Roy, F. and Czakon, W. (eds.) The Routledge companion to coopetition strategies. Routledge,

Abingdon.

Mariani, M. M. (2007). Coopetition as an emergent strategy: Empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of

opera houses. International Studies of Management & Organization,.37(2), 97-126.

Meena, A., Dhir, S., & Sushil, S. (2023). A review of coopetition and future research agenda. Journal of

Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(1), 118-136.

Morris, M. H., Koçak, A., & Ozer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for

performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(1), 35-56.

Najam, A. (2003). The four-C’s of third sector-government relations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership,

10(4), 375–396.

Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co‐opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies

for the digital economy. Strategy & leadership, 25(6), 28-33.

Nikolova, M. (2015). Government funding of private voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 44(3), 487–509.

Padula, G., & Dagnino, G. B. (2008). On the nature and drivers of coopetition. International Studies of

Management and Organization, Forthcoming.

Park, B. J., & Kim, D. (2021). Coopetition dynamics between giant entrants and incumbents in a new

convergent segment: a case in the smartphone industry. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 29(3),

455-476.

Pathak, S. D., Wu, Z., & Johnston, D. (2014). Toward a structural view of co-opetition in supply networks.

Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 254-267.

Qin, J., Wang, K., Wang, Z., & Xia, L. (2020). Revenue sharing contracts for horizontal capacity sharing under

competition. Annals of Operations Research, 291(1), 731-760.

Qizi, M. K. I. (2021). The role of museums in the development of tourism. Academicia: An International

Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 11(2), 121-124.

Rajala, A., & Tidström, A. (2017). A multilevel perspective on organizational buying behavior in coopetition–

an exploratory case study. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 23(3), 202-210.

Raza-Ullah, T. (2020). Experiencing the paradox of coopetition: A moderated mediation framework explaining

the paradoxical tension–performance relationship. Long range planning, 53(1), 101863.

Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at

multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, vol.43(2), 189-198.

Ritala, P. (2012). Coopetition strategy–when is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market

performance. British Journal of Management, vol.23(3), 307-324.

Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009). What's in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in

innovation-related coopetition. Technovation, 29(12), 819-828.

Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition—The role of

absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of product innovation management, 30(1), 154-169.

Ritala, P., Huizingh, E., Almpanopoulou, A., & Wijbenga, P. (2017). Tensions in R&D networks: Implications

for knowledge search and integration. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 311–322.

Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance

organization on innovation. Academy Of Management Journal, 50(2), 364-386.

Scheff, J., & Kotler, P. (1996). Crisis in the arts: The marketing response. California Management Review, (1),

28-52.

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousands Oaks. Cal: Sage Publications.

Scott, W. R. (2010). Reflections: The past and future of research on institutions and institutional change. Journal

of change management, 10(1), 5-21.

Seepana, C., Huq, F. A., & Paulraj, A. (2021). Performance effects of entrepreneurial orientation, strategic

intent and absorptive capacity within coopetitive relationships. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 41(3), 227-250.

Patrycja Juszczyk

Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative research. Sage, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, Melbourne.

Solesvik, M., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2013). Partner selection for open innovation. Technology Innovation

Management Review, 3(4), 6-11.

Song, D. W., Cheon, S., & Pire, C. (2015). Does size matter for port coopetition strategy? Concept, motivation

and implication. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 18(3), 207-227.

Stentoft, J., Mikkelsen, O. S., & Ingstrup, M. B. (2018). Coopetition Segments in a Public-Sector Context:

Insights from a Business Region. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(13), 1084-1094.

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy Of Management Journal, 49(4),

633-642.

Tidström, A. (2009). Causes of conflict in intercompetitor cooperation. Journal of Business & Industrial

Marketing, vol. 7(24), 506-518.

Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261-271.

Tidström, A., Ritala, P., & Lainema, K. (2018). Interactional and procedural practices in managing coopetitive

tensions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(7), 945-957.

Tippmann, E., Scott, P. S., Reilly, M., & O’Brien, D. (2018). Subsidiary coopetition competence: Navigating

subsidiary evolution in the multinational corporation. Journal of World Business, 53(4), 540-554.

Tuckman, H. P. (1998). Competition, commercialization, and the evolution of nonprofit organizational

structures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 17(2), 175-194.

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European

journal of social psychology, 5(1), 1-34.

Turner, J. C. (1996). Henri Tajfel: an introduction. Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri

Tajfel, 1, 23.

Van den Broek, J., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2018). Cooperative innovation through a talent management pool:

A qualitative study on coopetition in healthcare. European Management Journal, 36(1), 135-144.

Velu, C. (2016). Evolutionary or revolutionary business model innovation through coopetition? The role of

dominance in network markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 124-135.

Volschenk, J., Ungerer, M., & Smit, E. (2016). Creation and appropriation of socio-environmental value in

coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 109-118.

Walley, K. (2007). Coopetition: an introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. International Studies

of Management & Organization, 37(2), 11-31.

Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward.

Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 2 ,171-180.

Westra, D., Angeli, F., Carree, M., & Ruwaard, D. (2017). Coopetition in health care: A multi-level analysis of

its individual and organizational determinants. Social Science & Medicine, 186, 43-51.

Wilhelm, M. M. (2011). Managing coopetition through horizontal supply chain relations: Linking dyadic and

network levels of analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 29(7-8), 663-676.