With a little help from my friends: the interaction between coopetition, an entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Underpinned by a stakeholder-oriented resource-based theoretical lens, this inter-disciplinary study investigates the association between an entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance under different degrees of coopetition (cooperation among rival firms). Design/methodology/approach Alongside undertaking 20 semi-structured interviews, survey responses were obtained from 302 smaller-sized producers in the American wine industry. The elements of the conceptual model were evaluated via hierarchical regression. Moreover, all major robustness checks were assessed. Findings Positive and significant relationships respectively existed between an entrepreneurial orientation and coopetition with firm performance. However, a somewhat counter-intuitive finding involved the interaction between these two constructs negatively and significantly influencing firm performance. Originality/value Even though employing an entrepreneurial orientation has been long-since linked to facilitating improved firm performance, under-resourced owner-managers of certain smaller-sized enterprises may struggle to implement these activities. In principle, cooperating with competitors can enhance resources/capabilities and lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. Nevertheless, unique insights suggest that the potential exists for coopetition-based networking activities to have detrimental outcomes with respect to entrepreneurially orientated strategies. Consequently, decision-makers are advised to consider the merits of collaborating with their industry rivals, but also be aware of the potential “dark sides” surrounding these behaviours. Furthermore, improved knowledge emerges regarding the stakeholder themes of resource-based theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".