Public Administration Perspective

Coopetitive (Cooperation and Competition) Advantage in Public Organizations: Synergy of People and Process

Document Type : Research Article (with qualitative approaches)

Authors

1 Ph.D Student in Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

3 Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:The purpose of this article is how to achieve competitive advantage in public organizations. The new concept of coopetitive advantage has introduced in terms of cooperation and competition regard to the objective of common interest and creating shared value in these organizations to distinguish with competition and profitability concept in private corporations.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The research method of this paper is Critical Hermeneutics. The main axes of systems thinking have been studied and interpretation and sympathy between theories have been presented firstly. Then, the dimensions are examined in the interpretative paradigm and the expressions and synthesis of key concepts are declared.
Research Findings: Coopetitive advantage can be defined with emphasis on cooperation to compete for becoming the premier service deliverer among public organizations. Three dimensions of organization’s structure, human resource management’s processes and human capital’s functions are considered as a whole. Iteration of these components measures coopetitive advantage relating to the whole that is more integrated in next iterations.
Limitations & Consequences: Timeconsuming of the Critical Hermeneutics method is one of the main limitations in this research that the researcher is indispensable to choose this strategy for achieving desirable consequences regarding the fundamental subject and necessity of meta-theorizing.
Practical Consequences: Introducing people and process as the main pillars to achieve coopetitive advantage in public organizations, the government strategic plans are also supported. Coopetitive advantage in these organizations will be resulted systematically by synergy of functions and processes that its components are interrelated in a value-based and holistic context.
Innovation or Value of the Article: This article is presenting the matrix and formula of People and Process with designing the newfound concept of Coopetitive Advantage in Public Organizations for the first time in title of the foundation for future research.

Keywords

  1. Alvani, S. M. (2012). Introduction to organizations’ ethical maturity. Organizational Behavior Studies Quarterly, 1(1), 1–9. (In Persian)
  2. Armstrong, M. (2008). Strategic human resource management: A guide to action. 4th Edition. London: Kogan Page.
  3. Bloom, B. S. (Editor), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. NY: David McKay.
  4. Cardy, R. L., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2006). Competencies: Alternative frameworks for competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 49, 235-245.
  5. Christ, K. L., Burritt, R. L., & Varsei, M. (2017). Coopetition as a potential strategy for corporate sustainability. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  6. Curtis, B., Hefley, B., & Miller, S. (2009). People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM). Version 2.0, 2nd Edition.Carnegie Mellon University.
  7. Cygler, J., Sroka, W. (2016). The boundaries of coopetition: A case study of Polish companies operating in the high-tech sector. In J. Ateljević & J. Trivić (Editors), Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  8. Cygler, J., & Sroka, W. (2017). Coopetition disadvantages: The case of the high tech companies. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  9. Cygler, J., Sroka, W., Solesvik, M., & Dębkowska, K. (2018). Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  10.  Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Expanded Edition.Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
  11.  Dzinkowski, R. (2000). The value of intellectual capital. In F. Luthans, K. W. Luthans, & B. C. Luthans (Editors), Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45-50.
  12.  Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture. 3rd Edition.Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  13.  Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. In M. Armstrong (Editor), Strategic human resource management: A guide to action. 4th Edition.London: Kogan Page.
  14.  Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Where do we go from here? New perspectives on the black box in strategic human resource management research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1448-1480.
  15.  Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  16.  Lechner, C., Soppe, B., & Dowling, M. (2016). Vertical coopetition and sales growth of young and small firms. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  17.  Lee, M. (2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 327–341.
  18.  Le Roy, F., Fernandez, A. S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2017). Managing coopetition in knowledge-based industries. In S. Sindakis & P. Theodorou (Editors.), Global opportunities for entrepreneurial growth: Coopetition and knowledge dynamics within and across firms; Advanced strategies in entrepreneurship, education and ecology. In J. M.Monticelli, , A. B. Da Silveira,  & L. M. Da Silva (Editors). The process of coopetitive strategy: A case study of microbreweries in Porto Alegre. Revista de AdministraçãoMackenzie, 19(4), 1-32.
  19.  Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45-50.
  20.  McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can't define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313-326.
  21.  Monticelli, J. M., Da Silveira, A. B., & Da Silva, L. M. (2018). The process of coopetitive strategy: A case study of microbreweries in Porto Alegre. Revista de AdministraçãoMackenzie, 19(4), 1-32.
  22.  Murby, L., & Gould, S. (2005). Effective performance management with the balanced scorecard: Technical report. London: CIMA.
  23.  Oláh, J., Bai, A., Karmazin, G., Balogh, P., & Popp, J. (2017). The role played by trust and its effect on the competiveness of logistics service providers in Hungary. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  24.  Sanou, F. H., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2016). How does centrality in coopetition networks matter? An empirical investigation in the mobile telephone industry. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  25.  Šebestová, J., Šperka, R., Małecka, J., & Łuczka, T. (2017). Co-working centres as a potential supportive network for cross-border business cooperation. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  26. Soltani, M., Jafari, S., Binandeh, R. (2017). The effect of cooperation in IT industry on innovation performance in Condition of implementing coopetition strategy. Journal of Information Technology Management, 9(2), 313-332. (In Persian)
  27.  Swanson, R. A. (1987). Human resource development definition. In R. L. Jacobs (Editor), Human resource development as an interdisciplinary body of knowledge. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 65-71.
  28.  Swanson, R. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 299–312.
  29.  Van der Wal, Z., De Graaf, G., & Lasthuizen, K. (2008). What's valued most: Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465-482.
  30.  Williamson, O. E. (1987). The economic institutions of capitalism. In J. Cygler, W. Sroka, M. Solesvik & K. Dębkowska (Editors), Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.
  31.  Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for SHRM. In M. Armstrong (Editor), Strategic human resource management: A guide to action. 4th Edition.London: Kogan Page.
  32.  Zhao, Z., Renard, D., Elmoukhliss, M., & Balague, C. (2016). What affects creative performance in idea co-creation: Competitive, cooperative or coopetitive climate? In J. M.Monticelli, , A. B. Da Silveira,  & L. M. Da Silva (Editors). The process of coopetitive strategy: A case study of microbreweries in Porto Alegre. Revista de AdministraçãoMackenzie, 19(4), 1-32.
Public Administration Perspective
Volume 11, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
June 2020
Pages 15-33