While research on the phenomenon of coopetition has dramatically increased during the last years, this line of inquiry often embodies a loosely connected body of work with fragmented themes, underdeveloped concepts, and little work explaining coopetition at multiple levels. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review of the field, and based on a final set of 142 contributions, synthesize the disparate research into a coherent whole by developing an overarching and dynamic multilevel model. We first systematize diverse conceptualizations of coopetition with respect to different levels into The Actor and The Activity Schools of Thought. Then we integrate major critical themes into a Driver, Process, Outcomes (DPO) framework, and offer a Blended School of Thought to show how different levels are intertwined and affect each other. Next, we develop a multilevel conceptual model of coopetition by integrating the Blended School into the DPO framework. This model helps future re- search better understand how the phenomena of coopetition at one level of analysis are distinct, yet interlinked, from coopetition at other levels, and in so doing, provides a richer and more complete perspective of the phe- nomenon of coopetition. Finally, we identify promising research avenues and suggest how future research can strengthen this line of inquiry.

This article explores the nature of the paradox inherent in coopetition; that is, the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition between firms, and emanating tensions that develop at individual, organizational, and inter-organizational levels. We dissect the anatomy of the coopetition paradox to discover how it materializes by creating an external boundary (i.e., via unifying forces) and internal boundaries (i.e., via divergent forces). After explaining the coopetition paradox, we distinguish tension from paradox and submit that tension comprises both positive and negative emotions simultaneously, also known as emotional ambivalence. Finally, we recognize that emotional ambivalence in coopetition prevails at different levels, and vary in its level of intensity and persistency in relation to different contexts. We employ illustrative cases to ground our propositions empirically. This article provides understanding on concepts, expects to incite fruitful dialogue, and fuels further studies on inter-firm paradoxes.

In this study, we apply a paradox perspective on coopetition to investigate the effects of coopetition paradox on managers' experience and perception of coopetitive tensions, and the role of coopetition capability in managing such tensions. We propose a theoretical model to posit that the intensity of coopetition paradox positively associates with managers' experience of external tension, which in turn lead them to perceive internal tension. Further, coopetition capability plays a dual role—moderates the relation between coopetition paradox and external tension, and reduces internal tension. We tested hypotheses on a representative multi-industry sample of 1532 firms in Sweden and the results confirm them. Our study contributes to understanding the critical role of coopetition capability that enables firms to maintain a moderate level of tension regardless of the intensity of coopetition paradox. 

I develop and test a theoretical model of moderated mediation in which emotional ambivalence functions as an intervening mechanism that explains association between co-opetitive tension and performance in co-opetition alliances. I also consider how managerial response of acceptance and organizational balancing capability influence the mediating role of emotional ambivalence in the tension– performance relationship through the effect they have on how ambivalence relates to performance. The structural model results, based on a sample of 220 firms involved in dyadic co-opetition alliances, show full mediation of emotional ambivalence and positive moderation of balancing capability. Counter to my expectation, however, acceptance response negatively moderates the link between emotional ambivalence and performance. Interestingly, the moderated mediation results show that when balancing capability is high and ambivalence response is low, the conditional indirect effects of tension on performance turn from negative to positive. I discuss how the recent theory on ambivalent responses of wise actors versus wise systems can explain this intriguing pattern of moderated mediation.