Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing coopetition in multi-unit organizations: a management-control perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the management of internal coopetitive tensions among business units (BUs) in multiunit organizations from a management-control perspective. Existing research on internal coopetitive management has acknowledged the role of principles and mechanisms in managing these tensions but has paid less attention to the role of controls. Drawing from the literature on management control, we follow the package perspective, which suggests combining technical and social controls to manage tensions in organizations. The question becomes how a package of technical and social controls can manage coopetitive tensions. This longitudinal case study of a leading French multiunit company in the banking industry therefore (1) provides evidence of coopetitive tensions between two BUs; (2) highlights how a package of controls was used to manage these coopetitive tensions; (3) demonstrates how this package increased competition and generated competitive tensions between the BUs; and (4) describes how a new combination of controls was adapted to manage these additional tensions. These findings thus enrich the coopetition management literature by revealing (1) the essential role of controls in managing internal coopetitive relationships among BUs; (2) the package of controls for effectively managing internal coopetition; and (3) the dynamic interactions between the use of controls and tensions among BUs.

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

Notes

  1. Source: Financial Stability Board.

  2. In italics are the questions that were added for the second round of interviews.

References

  • Abernethy MA, Chua WF (1996) A field study of control system redesign: the impact of institutional processes on strategic choice. Contemp Acc Res 13(2):569–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Adm Sci Q 61–89

  • Aguinis H, Solarino AM (2019) Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: the case of interviews with elite informants. Strateg Manag J 40(8):1291–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrens T, Chapman CS (2004) Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: a field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemp Acc Res 21(2):271–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson M, Kärreman D (2004) Interfaces of control. Technocratic and socio-ideological control in a global management consultancy firm. Acc Organ Soc 29(3–4):423–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amata R, Dagnino GB, Mina A, Picone PM (2022) Managing coopetition in diversified firms: insights from a qualitative case study. Long Range Plan 55(4):102128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos TC, Fuchs SH, Zimmermann A (2020) Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: the case of a multinational hybrid organization. J Int Bus Stud 51(6):906–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriani P, Passiante G (2004) Complexity theory and management of networks. Imperial College Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford DS (2020) Conceptual and empirical issues in understanding management control combinations. Acc Organ Soc 86:101187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford DS, Malmi T (2015) Configurations of control: an exploratory analysis. Manag Acc Res 27:2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford DS, Malmi T, Sandelin M (2016a) Management control effectiveness and strategy: an empirical analysis of packages and systems. Acc Organ Soc 51:12–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Tiberius V (2021) Legitimacy processes and trajectories of co-prosumption services: insights from coworking spaces. J Serv Res 10946705211050208

  • Bouncken RB, Clauß T, Fredrich V (2016) Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: singular or plural governance? Ind Mark Manag 53:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Fredrich V, Ritala P, Kraus S (2018) Coopetition in new product development alliances: advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. Br J Manag 29(3):391–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Fredrich V, Kraus S (2020) Configurations of firm-level value capture in coopetition. Long Range Plan 53(1):101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Qiu Y, Sinkovics N, Kürsten W (2021) Qualitative research: extending the range with flexible pattern matching. RMS 15(2):251–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouquet C, Birkinshaw J (2008) Weight versus voice: how foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Acad Manag J 51(3):577–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger A, Nalebuff BJ (1996) Co-opetition. Currency Doubleday

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JA, Gianiodis P, Santoro MD (2017) Managing co-opetition for Shared Stakeholder Utility in dynamic environments. Calif Manag Rev 59(4):114–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617705868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busco C, Giovannoni E, Scapens RW (2008) Managing the tensions in integrating global organisations: the role of performance management systems. Manag Acc Res 19(2):103–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JL, Quincy C, Osserman J, Pedersen OK (2013) Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociol Methods Res 42(3):294–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson-Wall M, Kraus K, Meidell A, Tran P (2019) Managing risk in the public sector–the interaction between vernacular and formal risk management systems. Financ Acc Manag 35(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiambaretto P, Gurău C, Le Roy F (2016) Coopetitive branding: definition, typology, benefits and risks. Ind Mark Manag 57:86–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiambaretto P, Massé D, Mirc N (2019) All for one and one for all?—knowledge broker roles in managing tensions of internal coopetition: the Ubisoft case. Res Policy 48(3):584–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley KG, Gioia DA (2004) Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Adm Sci Q 49(2):173–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortese D, Giacosa E, Cantino V (2021) Knowledge sharing for coopetition in tourist destinations: the difficult path to the network. RMS 15:275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czakon W, Czernek-Marszałek K (2021) Competitor perceptions in tourism coopetition. J Travel Res 60(2):312–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czakon W, Klimas P, Mariani MM (2020) Behavioral antecedents of coopetition_ a synthesis and measurement scale. Long Range Plan 53:101875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czakon W, Hajdas M, Radomska J (2022) Playing the wild cards: antecedents of family firm resilience. J Fam Bus Strateg 100484

  • Das TK, Teng B-S (1998) Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):491–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson M, Mathews J, Kastelle T, Hu M-C (2008) The evolving nature of Taiwan’s national innovation system: the case of biotechnology innovation networks. Res Policy 37:430–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doornich JB, Kaarbøe K, Bourmistrov A (2019) The tension between intention and attention: dialectic changes in the coercive and enabling orientations of organizational rules. Qual Res Acc Manag 16(2):197–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epp AM, Otnes CC (2021) High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. J Serv Res 24(2):163–167

  • Fernandez A-S, Marques P, Le Roy F, Robert F (2008) Mesurer la coopétition: Des enjeux méthodologique. Congrès Des IAE. Congrès des IAE, Lille, France

  • Fernandez A-S, Le Roy F, Gnyawali DR (2014) Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Ind Mark Manag 43(2):222–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez A-S, Le Roy F, Chiambaretto P (2018) Implementing the right project structure to achieve coopetitive innovation projects. Long Range Plan 51(2):384–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco-Santos M, Otley D (2018) Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. Int J Manag Rev 20(3):696–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco-Santos M, Lucianetti L, Bourne M (2012) Contemporary performance measurement systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research. Manag Acc Res 23(2):79–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelei A, Dobos I (2023) Micro-coopetition: conceptualizing and operationalizing coopetitive managerial decision-making over time—a game theoretic approach. RMS 1–25

  • Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strateg Manag J 29(13):1465–1474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in Inductive Research Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organ Res Methods 16(1):15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, Song Y (2016) Pursuit of rigor in research: illustration from coopetition literature. Ind Mark Manag 57:12–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafton J, Mundy J (2017) Relational contracting and the myth of trust: control in a co-opetitive setting. Manag Acc Res 36:24–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood AG (1972) An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. J Acc Res 156–182

  • Klimas P, Ahmadian AA, Soltani M, Shahbazi M, Hamidizadeh A (2023) Coopetition, where do you come from? identification, categorization, and configuration of theoretical roots of Coopetition. SAGE Open 13(1):21582440221085004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruis A-M, Speklé RF, Widener SK (2016) The levers of control framework: an exploratory analysis of balance. Manag Acc Res 32:27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfield-Smith K (1997) Management control systems and strategy: a critical review. Acc Organ Soc 22(2):207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(95)00040-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad Manag Rev 24(4):691–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Roy F, Czakon W (2016) Managing coopetition: the missing link between strategy and performance. Ind Mark Manag 53:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letcher B, de Villiers Scheepers M, Graham W (2021) Small firm coopetition–the missing links: coopetitive tension, balance and value. J Bus Ind Mark

  • Locke KD (2003) Grounded theory in management research. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024428

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren-Henriksson E-L, Kock S (2016) A sensemaking perspective on coopetition. Ind Mark Manag 57:97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren-Henriksson E-L, Tidström A (2021) Temporal distancing and integrating: exploring coopetition tensions through managerial sensemaking dynamics. Scand J Manag 37(3):101168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo Y (2005) Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: a perspective from foreign subsidiaries. J World Bus 40:71–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo X, Slotegraaf RJ, Pan X (2006) Cross-functional coopetition: the simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. J Mark 70:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malina MA, Selto FH (2001) Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. J Manag Acc Res 13(1):47–90. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2001.13.1.47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmi T, Brown DA (2008) Management control systems as a package—opportunities, challenges and research directions. Manag Acc Res 19(4):287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant KA, Otley D (2020) Beyond the systems versus package debate. Acc Organ Soc 86:101185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mierzejewska W (2022) 2 Cooperation, Competition, and Coopetition within Business Groups. Business Groups and Strategic Coopetition, 22

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. an expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundy J (2010) Creating dynamic tensions through a balanced use of management control systems. Acc Organ Soc 35(5):499–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otley D (1980) The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. Readings in accounting for management control. Springer, pp 83–106

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Otley D (1999) Performance management: a framework for management control systems research. Manag Acc Res 10(4):363–382. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1999.0115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park SH, Russo MV (1996) When competition eclipses cooperation: an event history analysis of joint venture failure. Manag Sci 42(6):875–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai RK (2016) A co-opetition-based approach to value creation in interfirm alliances: construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. J Manag 42(6):1663–1699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray CA (1986) Corporate culture: the last Frontier of control?[1]. J Manag Stud 23(3):287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi F, Zardini A, Czakon W, Rossignoli C, Kraus S (2022) Revisiting the cooperation–competition paradox: a configurational approach to short-and long-term coopetition performance in business networks. Eur Manag J 40(3):320–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas-Córdova C, Williamson AJ, Pertuze JA, Calvo G (2023) Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes. RMS 17(7):2251–2295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe C, Birnberg JG, Shields MD (2008) Effects of organizational process change on responsibility accounting and managers’ revelations of private knowledge. Acc Organ Soc 33(2–3):164–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C (2018) Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 52(4):1893–1907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein EH (1992) How can organizations learn faster?: the problem of entering the Green Room

  • Séran T, Pellegrin-Boucher E, Gurau C (2016) The management of coopetitive tensions within multi-unit organizations. Ind Mark Manag 53:31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N (2007) Persuasion with case studies. Acad Manag J 50(1):20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons R (1995) Control in an age of empowerment. Harv Bus Rev 73(March–April):80–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons R, Dávila A (2021) How top managers use the entrepreneurial gap to drive strategic change. Eur Acc Rev 30(4):583–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2020.1792959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smets LPM, Langerak F, Tatikonda MV (2016) Collaboration between competitors’ NPD teams: in search of effective modes of management control. R&D Manag 46(S1):244–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smiljic S, Aas TH, Mention A-L (2022) Coopetitive tensions across project phases: a paradox perspective. Ind Mark Manag 105:388–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith M, Bititci US (2017) Interplay between performance measurement and management, employee engagement and performance. Int J Oper Prod Manag

  • Solarino AM, Aguinis H (2021) Challenges and best-practice recommendations for designing and conducting interviews with elite informants. J Manag Stud 58(3):649–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song J, Lee K, Khanna T (2016) Dynamic capabilities at Samsung: optimizing Internal Co-Opetition. Calif Manag Rev 58(4):118–140. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessier S, Otley D (2012) A conceptual development of Simons’ Levers of Control framework. Manag Acc Res 23(3):171–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas DR (2017) Feedback from research participants: are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qual Res Psychol 14(1):23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidström A (2014) Managing tensions in coopetition. Ind Mark Manag 43(2):261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippmann E, Sharkey Scott P, Reilly M, O’Brien D (2018) Subsidiary coopetition competence: navigating subsidiary evolution in the multinational corporation. J World Bus 53(4):540–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W (2002) Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ Sci 13(2):179–190. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.179.536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag J 41(4):464–476. https://doi.org/10.5465/257085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Kolk B, van Veen-Dirks PM, ter Bogt HJ (2020) How combinations of control elements create tensions and how these can be managed: an embedded case study. Manag Acc Res 48:100677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer-Kooistra J, Scapens RW (2008) The governance of lateral relations between and within organisations. Manag Acc Res 19:365–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Fenema PC, Loebbecke C (2014) Towards a framework for managing strategic tensions in dyadic interorganizational relationships. Scand J Manag 30(4):516–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M-C, Chen J-S (2022) Driving coopetition strategy to service innovation: the moderating role of coopetition recognition. RMS 16(5):1471–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn. SAGE

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2012) Applications of case study research. SAGE

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2013) Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation 19(3):321–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013497081

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research benefitted from the financial support of LabEx Entrepreneurship (University of Montpellier, France), funded by the French government (LabEx Entreprendre, ANR-10 Labex-11-01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Montpellier , Espace Richter – Rue Vendémiaire – Bât B, CS 19519, 34960, Montpellier Cedex, France

    Thuy Séran, Anne-Sophie Fernandez & Hervé Chappert

Authors
  1. Thuy Séran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne-Sophie Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hervé Chappert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Sophie Fernandez.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendices

Appendix A. Information about the interviewees

Interview n°

Position of the interviewee

Duration

Profile of the interviewee

Period

1

BPCE Administrator

45 min

Male ~ 60 years old

2009–2015

2

CE Administrator

45 min

Male ~ 60 years old

2009–2015

3

BPCE Manager

60 min

Male ~ 50 years old

2009–2015

4

CE Dir Change (key informant)

120 min

Male ~ 50 years old

2009–2015

5

CE Director of Organization

30 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

6

BPCE Director

30 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

7

CE Director

120 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

8

CE Director

60 min

Male ~ 50 years old

2009–2015

9

BPCE Manager

60 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

10

CE Manager

60 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

11

BPCE IT Manager

60 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

12

CE CIO

60 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

13

BPCE Commercial Director

60 min

Male ~ 50 years old

2009–2015

14

BP Innovation Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2009–2015

15

BPCE Data Manager

45 min

Male ~ 35 years old

2009–2015

16

BP Data Manager

45 min

Male ~ 35 years old

2009–2015

17

BPCE Data Manager

45 min

Male ~ 40 years old

2009–2015

18

BPCE Data Manager

45 min

Male ~ 40 years old

2009–2015

19

CE Project Manager

45 min

Male ~ 35 years old

2009–2015

20

BPCE Manager

45 min

Male ~ 35 years old

2009–2015

21

CE Project Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2009–2015

22

CE Sales Manager

45 min

Female ~ 50 years old

2009–2015

23

BPCE Sales Manager project

45 min

Female ~ 50 years old

2009–2015

24

CE Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2009–2015

25

CE Project Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2009–2015

26

CE Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2009–2015

27

CE Security IT manager (key informant)

90 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2009–2015

28

CE Formation IT manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2009–2015

29

CE Credit Card Manager

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

30

BPCE IT Manager

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

31

CE Manager

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

32

CE Manager

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

33

BPCE Manager

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

34

CE Manager

60 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

35

BPCE Manager

60 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2009–2015

36

BPCE CIO Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

37

BP Innovation Director (key informant)

140 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2016–2022

38

BP CEO (key informant)

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2016–2022

39

BPCE Director

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2016–2022

40

BP Chief Financial Officer

45 min

Female ~ 50 years old

2016–2022

41

CE Steering Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

42

BPCE Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

43

BP Marketing manager

45 min

Male ~ 40 years old

2016–2022

44

BP Data Partner

45 min

Male ~ 40 years old

2016–2022

45

CE Artificial Intelligence Project manager

45 min

Male ~ 40 years old

2016–2022

46

BPCE AI Manager

45 min

Male ~ 40 years old

2016–2022

47

BPCE Project Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

48

CE CRM manager

45 min

Female ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

49

CE Project Manager

45 min

Female ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

50

BP Saving Loan Manager

45 min

Female ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

51

BP Manager

45 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2016–2022

52

BP Project Manager

45 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

53

BPCE Sale Director

30 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

54

BP Sales Director

30 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

55

BP IT Manager (key informant)

30 min

Male ~ 45 years old

2016–2022

56

CE Manager

60 min

Male ~ 55 years old

2016–2022

57

BPCE Manager

40 min

Male ~ 35 years old

2016–2022

Appendix B. The interview guide

Introduction

Presentation of the study (context and objectives)

Introduction to the interviewee

Internal coopetition

Could you describe the relationships between the BUs?

Why and how do the BUs cooperate?

Why and how do the BUs compete? (internally and externally)

Coopetitive tensions between the BUs

Could you share with us your experience of joint activities and/or projects?

What are the objectives? What are the results?

How does each BU contribute to these projects? Why?

How is the value created and distributed among the BUs?

What are the difficulties encountered at the project level?

Do you share information about other projects with the partner team? Why? How?

How is knowledge managed? What do you share or not share? Why? Are there risks associated with knowledge transfer?

Have you experienced some tensions between the BUs? Can you talk more about them (why, how, when?)

How have such tensions been managed? What controls have been used? Who was in charge?

Have you experienced some learning between the BUs? Can you talk more about that (why, how, when?)

Management control to manage the tensions

Can you describe the controls used at the business level and/or at the company level?

How were they designed?

For what purposes were they designed? (i.e., alignment of interests; uncertainty monitoring; information asymmetry; performance evaluationFootnote 2)

Can you describe their implementation/use?

Did you encounter difficulties in their use?

Implications of the use of management control

What do you think about the management controls designed/implemented by the company?

Have you encountered difficulties using management controls designed by the company? How so? Why?

How have you solved these difficulties?

Do you think the controls facilitated the cooperation between the BUs? Why? How?

Do you think the controls facilitated the cooperation with headquarters? Why? How?

Do you think the controls fostered the competition between the BUs? Why How?

What do you think about the effectiveness of the initial controls? Why?

What are the most salient/unintended consequences of the use of these controls?

How did the company and the BUs adapt to these undesirable consequences?

Conclusion

Anything you would like to add?

Any recommendation for other interviews?

Acknowledgments and greetings

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

Séran, T., Fernandez, AS. & Chappert, H. Managing coopetition in multi-unit organizations: a management-control perspective. Rev Manag Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00697-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00697-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation