Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The “human side” of coopetition: the role of CEO mindsets in firm coopetition for innovation

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to upper echelons theory, firms’ strategic decision-making is, to a great extent, driven by the mindsets of the managers. Focusing on the role of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) coopetitive mindset, which reflects the CEO’s favorable perception of simultaneously competitive and cooperative relationships and the willingness to pursue opportunities for accessing complementary assets and managing complicated relationships in positive ways, this research attempts to fill an important gap in the growing body of literature by examining the human-side antecedents of firm coopetition, as well as its boundary conditions. Using a two-phase survey of 780 Chinese firms, we found that firms with CEOs who have more coopetitive mindsets are more likely to adopt coopetition alliances for innovation. In addition, the relationship between CEO mindsets and firm coopetition is contingent on different levels of executive job demand. Specifically, higher levels of innovation performance challenge, technological uncertainty, and regional intellectual property protection incompleteness strengthen the impact of CEO mindsets on firm coopetition alliances. This research enriches our understanding of the micro-foundation of coopetition by considering the role of CEOs. We also contribute to the upper echelons theory by depicting how executive job demands interactively moderate the impact of CEO mindsets in the contexts of firms’ coopetition for innovation. Moreover, this study provides enlightening implications for ongoing managerial practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afuah, A. (2000). Special issue: Strategic Networks how much do your “Co-Opetitor” Capabilities Matter in the Face of Technological Change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.Inc.

  • Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arikan, A. T. (2009). Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of management review, 34(4), 658–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research policy, 30(4), 611–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. Jr. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayona, C., Garcı́a-Marco, T., & Huerta, E. (2001). Firms’ motivations for cooperative R&D: An empirical analysis of spanish firms. Research Policy, 30(8), 1289–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M., Haunschild, P. R., & Phillips, D. J. (2004). Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15(3), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management, 29(5), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial marketing management, 43(2), 180–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeker, W., & Goodstein, J. (1993). Performance and successor choice: The moderating effects of governance and ownership. Academy of Management journal, 36, 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations.European Journal of Innovation Management.

  • Bogers, M., Bekkers, R., & Granstrand, O. (2012). Intellectual property and licensing strategies in open collaborative innovation. Open innovation in firms and public administrations: Technologies for value creation (pp. 37–58). IGI global.

  • Bouncken, R. B., & Fredrich, V. (2012). Coopetition: Performance implications and management antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(5), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgers, W. P., Hill, C. W., & Kim, W. C. (1993). A theory of global strategic alliances: The case of the global auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 419–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Alexander, J. (1999). Winning by co-opeting in strategic government-university-industry R&D partnerships: The power of complex, dynamic knowledge networks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in International Business Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition—cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coy, P. (2006). Sleeping with the enemy.Business Week, August(21/28),96–97.

  • Crick, M., J (2020). The dark side of coopetition: When collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(2), 318–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2019). Developing and validating a multi-dimensional measure of coopetition. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34 No(4), 665–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm.Prentice-Hall, 2.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Faria, P., & Sofka, W. (2010). Knowledge protection strategies of multinational firms—A cross-country comparison. Research Policy, 39(7), 956–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Benedetto, C. A. D., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobrucalı, B. (2020). The role of Guanxi on international business-to-business relationships: A systematic review and future directions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(7), 1125–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchell, W. (2000). Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic management journal, 21(2), 99–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, D. K. (2015). Hypercompetitive environments, Coopetition Strategy, and the role of complementary assets in Building competitive advantage: Insights from the resource-based view. Strategic Management Review, 9(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management journal, 32(3), 543–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emden, Z., Calantone, R. J., & Droge, C. (2006). Collaborating for new product development: Selecting the partner with maximum potential to create value. Journal of product innovation management, 23(4), 330–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrada, I., & Dong, J. Q. (2020). Learning from experience? Technological investments and the impact of coopetition experience on firm profitability. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’ transformational behaviours and personal values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 222–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. A. (2004). 50th anniversay article: The strategy field from the perspective of Management Science: Divergent strands and possible integration. Management science, 50(10), 1309–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Charleton, T. R. (2018). Nuances in the interplay of competition and cooperation: Towards a theory of coopetition. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2511–2534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of management review, 26, 431–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. (2006). Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. Journal of Management, 32(4), 507–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. (2008). Co-Opetition: Promises and challenges. Ccentury management a reference handbook, 1, 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. J., & Mowery, D. C. (2006). The use of intellectual property in software: implications for open innovation.Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm,184–204.

  • Granata, J., Lasch, F., Le Roy, F., & Dana, L. P. (2018). How do micro-firms manage coopetition? A study of the wine sector in France. International Small Business Journal, 36(3), 331–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., Carayannis, E., & Alexander, J. (2001). Strange bedfellows in the personal computer industry: Technology alliances between ibm and apple. Research Policy, 30(5), 837–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper Echelons Theory: An update. Academy of management review, 32(2), 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M., & Fredrickson, J. (1993). Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 401–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executives sometimes lose it, just like the rest of us. Academy of management review, 30, 503–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & John, C. H. S. (1994). Strategic management of organizations and stakeholders: Theory and cases. West Group.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate behavioral research, 50(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z., & Hirshleifer, D. (2022). The exploratory mindset and corporate innovation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 57(1), 127–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: Exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(7), 734–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., & Qingyuan Yue, L. (2008). 6 structure, affect and identity as bases of organizational competition and cooperation. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 275–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafouros, M., Wang, C., Piperopoulos, P., & Zhang, M. (2015). Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: The role of region-specific institutions. Research Policy, 44(3), 803–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to Econometrics. The MIT Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2011). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1–2), 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications.

  • Luo, Y. (2005). Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: A perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40(1), 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2007). A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World Business, 42(2), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science, 36(4), 422–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnier-Watanabe, R., & Senoo, D. (2009). Congruent knowledge management behaviors as discriminate sources of competitive advantage. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(2), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, R., & Lazzarotti, V. (2016). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in collaborative new product development. R&D Management, 46(S2), 579–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama, F. (1982). Study on the Relationships among Educational, Occupational, and income structure. Research in Higher Education, 11, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattsson, L. G., & Tidström, A. (2015). Applying the principles of Yin–Yang to market dynamics: On the duality of cooperation and competition. Marketing Theory, 15(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mention, A. L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Chen, M. J. (1994). Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the US airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of management review, 12(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mione, A. (2009). When entrepreneurship requires coopetition: The need for standards in the creation of a market. International journal of entrepreneurship and small business, 8(1), 92–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, D. (2006). Semiconductors: How small can they go? e-Week. Available at:http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-infrastructure/Semiconductors How-Small-Can-They-Go.

  • Morris, M. H., Kocak, A., & Ozer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance. Journal of small business strategy, 188(1), 35–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. C. (1995). The enactment of economic adversity: A reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat-rigidity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 287–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostergard, R. L. (2000). The measurement of intellectual property rights protection. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxley, J. E. (1999). Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38(3), 283–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattinson, S., Nicholson, J., & Lindgreen, A. (2018). Emergent coopetition from a sensemaking perspective: A multi-level analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research policy, 35(8), 1122–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2004). Cooperation, competition, and innovative capability: A panel data of european dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation, 24(12), 927–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial marketing management, 43(2), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, N., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1998). The effect of pretest method on error detection rates: Experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 480–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J., & Galvin, P. (2006). Alliance patterns during industry life cycle emergence: The case of ericsson and nokia. Technovation, 26(3), 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2003). Interfirm cooperation and customer orientation. Journal of marketing research, 40(4), 421–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P. (2012). Coopetition strategy–when is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. British Journal of Management, 23(3), 307–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P., & Sainio, L. M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2004). The impact of a company’s business strategy on its technological competence, network competence and innovation success. Journal of business research, 57(5), 548–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runge, S., Schwens, C., & Schulz, M. (2022). The invention performance implications of coopetition: How technological, geographical, and product market overlaps shape learning and competitive tension in r&d alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 43, 266–29994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler, L., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2016). Coopetition as a paradox: Integrative approaches in a multi-company, cross-sector partnership. Organization Studies, 37(5), 655–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H. K., & Corley, K. G. (2001). Organizational context as a moderator of theories on firm boundaries for technology sourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, F., Hong, J., Ma, X., & Wang, C. (2017). Subnational institutions and open innovation: Evidence from China. Management Decision, 55 No(9), 1942–1955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why - an empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of marketing, 64(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema, M. F., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Ceo dismissal: The role of investment analysts. Strategic Management Journal, 32(22), 1161–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Y. H., & Tam, J. L. (2000). Mapping relationships in China: Guanxi dynamic approach. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y., Dong, J. Q., & Faems, D. (2020). Not every coopetitor is the same: The impact of technological, market and geographical overlap with coopetitors on firms’ breakthrough inventions. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, W., Shen, R., Zhong, W., & Lu, J. (2020). CEO values, firm long-term orientation, and firm innovation: Evidence from chinese manufacturing firms. Management and Organization Review, 16(1), 69–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1090–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study is granted from the “National Natural Science Foundation of China” (NSFC grant no. 72022002; 71902029; 71972095; 72274093).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of International Trade & Economics, University of International Business and Economics, 10 Huixing East Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China

    Wei Zheng

  2. Department of Management, School of Business, Nanjing University, 22 Hankou Road, Gulou, Nanjing, 210093, China

    Haiyin Tu

  3. School of Business Administration, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, 3 Wenyuan Road, Xianlin University Town, Nanjing, 210023, China

    Yuandong Gu

  4. Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, No. 5 Yiheyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100871, China

    Haoqi Sun

Authors
  1. Wei Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haiyin Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuandong Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haoqi Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haiyin Tu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Wei Zheng declares that he has no conflict of interest, Haiyin Tu declares that he has no conflict of interest, Yuandong Gu declares that he has no conflict of interest, Haoqi Sun declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, W., Tu, H., Gu, Y. et al. The “human side” of coopetition: the role of CEO mindsets in firm coopetition for innovation. Asia Pac J Manag (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09884-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09884-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation