When does (not) a coopetitive relationship matter to performance? An empirical investigation of the role of multidimensional trust and distrust

Despite substantive evidence showing mixed results on the association between a coopetitive relationship and performance, surprisingly little theory explains the contingencies under which a coopetitive relationship does (or does not) matter to performance. By combining insights from the trust-distrust literature and 18 in-depth managerial conversations, this study unpacks the multidimensional nature of trust (i.e., goodwill and competence) and distrust (i.e., malevolence and discredibility) and suggests that the effect of a coopetitive relationship matters to performance, when both trust and distrust are present (at moderate to high levels), but fails to do so when one of them is low and the other is high. The results based on a sample of Swedish firms provide full support for the hypotheses. In terms of theoretical contributions, this study challenges the old wisdom suggesting trust as good and distrust as bad, extends the current understanding of trust and distrust beyond their onedimensionality, and provides a novel approach to understanding when a coopetitive relationship performs well and when it does not. In terms of practical relevance, it suggests that firms adopt a paradox mindset (with a focus on both trust and distrust) to unlock the positive potential of a coopetitive relationship.

Automated summary

This study examines the impact of trust and distrust in coopetitive relationships on performance, finding that both need to be present at moderate to high levels for the relationship to positively affect performance. The research also challenges traditional views on trust and distrust and provides insights on how firms can leverage both aspects to benefit from coopetition.