Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Survey study demonstrates that coopetition strategy drives value cocreation in small and medium-sized enterprises, highlighting how competing firms mutually benefit through shared knowledge.
Purpose This study aims to investigate how technology transfer, a collaborative culture and dysfunctional competition shape a coopetition strategy and how such a strategy enhances value cocreation (VCC) among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It further examines the moderating role of transformational leadership in strengthening or weakening these relationships. Design/methodology/approach Grounded in the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework and resource dependence theory, this study used a survey method targeting senior managers in Vietnamese SMEs. A total of 307 valid responses were analyzed via SmartPLS 4.0 to test the hypothesized relationships and moderating effects. Findings The results show that technology transfer, a collaborative culture and dysfunctional competition positively influence coopetition strategy. Coopetition strategy, in turn, exerts a strong positive effect on VCC. Transformational leadership significantly moderates these relationships: it strengthens the link between technology transfer and coopetition strategy but weakens the effects of a collaborative culture and dysfunctional competition. The model explains more than 83% of the variance in both coopetition strategy and VCC. Originality/value This research contributes to the coopetition strategy and TOE literature by identifying the technological, organizational and environmental antecedents of coopetition strategy and demonstrating their impact on VCC. Unlike prior studies that emphasize the outcomes of coopetition, this work highlights how specific enablers and leadership styles drive the process. Empirical evidence from SMEs in a developing economy provides fresh insights into how firms balance cooperation and competition to achieve VCC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: