Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion on how multinational company (MNC) headquarters (HQs) can manage the existing coopetition paradox to ensure innovation within the MNC. In contrast to the rather scarce previous research, the authors argue that HQ needs to solve the coopetition paradox under the sway of a parenting paradox. Hence, HQ faces a dual paradox.

Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the literature on HQ's role during MNCs' innovation processes, this conceptual paper revisits the previously suggested HQ measures to enable coopetition among subsidiaries. By applying a sheer ignorance perspective, the authors contribute with a more nuanced understanding of the HQ's role in innovation activities.

Findings The article identifies four challenges as the HQ faces a parenting paradox that hinders its ability to solve the coopetition paradox: context specificity of subsidiaries' innovation work, normative expectations of subsidiary managers, potential opportunistic behavior of HQ manager and HQ underestimation of needed resources. The article suggests that HQ needs to become more informed and preferably even embedded in the local innovation networks of its most important subsidiaries and that coopetition should not be managed solely on an HQ level.

Originality/value Advocating a sheer ignorance perspective, the article pioneers in discussing the role that HQ plays in managing coopetition among subsidiaries in innovation activities.

Purpose In this paper, the authors contribute with insights on competition and cooperation in multinational enterprises with a focus on challenges related to these governance mechanisms in a knowledge development context. The mechanisms have been widely recognized as important for developing knowledge, but their contradicting nature implies considerable complexity when it comes to governance. The complexity is further increased as a result of the headquarters-subsidiary relationships. The aim of this paper is to contribute with theoretical and empirical insights on these aspects by focusing on the research question: How and why does competition and cooperation in an MNE emerge over time?

Design/methodology/approach A manufacturing MNE with headquarters (HQ) in Sweden is analyzed on both HQ and subsidiary levels. Interviews with 24 managers in Sweden and India have been performed.

Findings The study illustrates that competition and cooperation are integral aspects in HQ-subsidiary relationships. The results show that both competition and cooperation depend on environmental, organizational and object-related conditions and that these conditions influence the dynamics of the interplay. The importance of including a subsidiary perspective and the interdependencies in an MNE setting are emphasized.

Originality/value The authors add to the discussion on the interplay between competition and cooperation as they play an important role for knowledge development in MNEs. The results indicate that they do not take place simultaneously, and therefore, the authors suggest that the dynamic can be better understood by focusing on the interplay and analyze the concepts separately.

In this chapter we investigate the organization of competition among subunits in multinational corporations (MNCs) with the intent to explore how headquarters encourages and organizes for competition and when and why competition is handled by subunits that cooperate. The organization of competition by headquarters among the subunits is characterized by special conditions due to the formal hierarchical organization and access to legitimate tools to instil competition. Competition arises around three sources: allocation of resources, system position and headquarters attention, and the allocation of subsidiary mandates. Empirical findings from six MNCs are used to illustrate the adoption of cooperative and non-cooperative behaviours among subunits as outcomes of headquarters implementation of different tools to organize for competition. The findings also show that headquarters is not only a fourth—but also a third—party as it adjudicates many of the competitive situations that it organizes among its units.

In this chapter we suggest that globalization of businesses brings with it three new challenges that teams need to face. These include an increase in the number of internal and external stakeholders to manage; the need to interact across more and different types of boundaries; and an increasing necessity to integrate local responsiveness and global coordination. We focus on how these new globalization challenges impact teams in general and team leadership in particular, and how team leaders can make a difference by developing specific capabilities to address them.

Building on a business network perspective, the aim of this paper is to present a theoretical view for studying service MNEs in ICT (information communication technology) projects centred on the improvement of public services. The four inter-related concepts of cooperation, legitimacy, commitment and knowledge are applied in the analysis of two projects. Defining the projects as object-based services, the study manifests how service MNEs manage three types of actors (business, politi-cal and social) having their legitimacy in different systems. The cases illustrate cross-border activities where MNEs from Sweden, Spain and China join forces in Brazil with local business, social and political actors and cooperate to strengthen their competitive market position. The study concludes that successful cooperation is partially explained by the management’s ability to incorporate business resources into the needs of the socio-political actors. Furthermore, in object-based services, which are not similar to long-term business relationships, the three involved par-ties advance different types of relationships within a loose network structure. A key implication is that extensive public–private relationships are needed even when MNEs enjoy an established position in a foreign market.

The paper aims to examine why innovations through networks emerge and how such innovations are configured. To address this, we examine two cases of IoT (internet of things) technologies applied on public services, i.e., Smart City development in Brazil. We demonstrate that innovation networks emerge because multinational enterprises (MNEs) in their constant need for innovation have limitations to pursuit and integrate complex knowledge on their own and for that reason cooperation with other actors becomes crucial. We describe and analyze a dynamic and complex process in which the MNEs’ searching-acting-convincing on an opportunity requires the inclusion of many actors. In particular the findings show that innovation is not limited to the traditional businessto business relationships but it can also arise from non-business actors such as NGOs and local government in both the development and implementation phase

Purpose: Building on a business network perspective, the paper addresses the following question: Why do firms move between cooperation and competition in the context of high-tech industry? Hence, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of the complex cooperation–competition interplay between actors in a business network.

Design/methodology/approach: A single case study within the information and communication technology industry is undertaken and illustrates the cooperation–competition interplay in projects of technology.

Findings: The authors discuss the implications of interdependence on relationship dynamics. The main argument is that business relationships survive despite periods of competition if interdependence is high. Thus, firms move between a state of cooperation and a state of competition within business relationships, rather than ending the relationships when starting to compete.

Practical implications: This study suggests that managers need to pay attention to how different degrees of interdependence lead firms to be embedded in cooperative or competitive forms of relationships.

Originality/value: The paper contributes to the ongoing debate about cooperation, competition and coopetition within international business and industrial marketing literature. An interesting aspect in the paper is the cooperation–competition interplay, which is associated with positioning. A centrally positioned actor will choose who to bring into the partnership, with positioning concomitantly changing from project to project. The willingness of being a central actor, i.e. a project leader, places traditional buyer–supplier partners in competition. Thus, cooperation and/or competition becomes contextual.