1. Abstract
The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile (BCP) is an advanced multidimensional psychometric instrument formulated by Klimas, Sachpazidu, Stańczyk, Kawa, and Nadolny (2025) to measure the complex behavioral and structural characteristics of inter-organizational strategic partnerships among competing firms. In contemporary industrial settings, firms frequently engage in coopetition—a paradoxical relational dynamic defined by the simultaneous pursuit of mutual collaboration and competitive rivalry. Despite growing strategic interest in this phenomenon, empirical organizational psychology and management research have long suffered from a shortage of validated operational tools designed to assess the behavioral profile of coopetitors. The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile addresses this theoretical and empirical gap through a psychometrically robust 28-item self-report inventory evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale.
The instrument was developed through an extensive multi-stage empirical methodology combining comprehensive desk research, qualitative pre-testing, and rigorous quantitative validation using a representative sample of executive managers from manufacturing enterprises operating in Poland. Methodological validation involved iterative exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), demonstrating a stable five-factor latent structure comprising: (1) Competition Intensity, (2) Conflict, (3) Formality, (4) Investments, and (5) Trust. The scale exhibits exceptional internal consistency, with dimension-specific Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between 0.857 and 0.916, and composite reliability (CR) indices systematically exceeding 0.70. Evaluated against stringent structural equation modeling standards, convergent validity was established via standardized factor loadings surpassing 0.50 and average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeding 0.50 across all latent factors. Discriminant validity was rigorously verified using the Fornell–Larcker criterion, confirming that each latent construct shares greater variance with its associated indicators than with other dimensions. The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile provides industrial psychologists, organizational researchers, and corporate strategists with an empirical framework to diagnose relational vulnerabilities, optimize governance mechanisms, and evaluate behavioral dynamics in complex business alliances.
2. Keywords
Coopetition, Behavioural Coopetitor Profile, Inter-organizational Relationships, Strategic Alliances, Organizational Behavior, Competition Intensity, Inter-organizational Trust, Conflict Management, Industrial Marketing, Psychometrics
3. Authors
The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by a collaborative team of management scientists and industrial relationship scholars across academic institutions in Poland:
- Patrycja Klimas — Department of Advanced Research in Management, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wrocław, Poland. Email: [email protected] (Corresponding Author).
- Karina Sachpazidu — Department of Advanced Research in Management, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wrocław, Poland. Email: [email protected].
- Sylwia Stańczyk — Department of Organizational Transformation and Improvement, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wrocław, Poland. Email: [email protected].
- Arkadiusz Kawa — Department of Business Relationships and International Marketing, Poznan University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland. Email: [email protected].
- Michał Nadolny — Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wrocław, Poland. Email: [email protected].
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the Behavioural Coopetitor Profile is to provide a standardized, psychometrically grounded instrument to quantify the multidimensional behavioral patterns, relational postures, and governance approaches that define firms engaged in concurrent cooperation and competition. In fast-paced, technologically volatile, and globally competitive business environments, individual organizations often lack the capital, technological competencies, and distribution infrastructure required to innovate independently. Consequently, direct competitors are driven to form horizontal strategic alliances to aggregate resources, set industrial standards, and co-develop intellectual property. However, coopetitive relationships are inherently paradoxical, characterized by competing demands: firms must openly collaborate to create collective value while aggressively competing to appropriate individual rent and safeguard proprietary assets.
Prior to the introduction of this instrument, empirical inquiry into coopetition was largely fragmented. Scholars frequently measured coopetition as an abstract dummy variable (e.g., whether an alliance with a competitor exists), an aggregated economic index, or an isolated psychological attitude of individual executives, failing to capture the dual, countervailing forces that govern inter-firm interactions. The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile overcomes this empirical limitation by conceptualizing coopetition as an organizational-level behavioral configuration. It assesses how managerial teams navigate relational tensions across multiple operational fronts, including relational commitment, formal oversight, legal structuring, competitive pressure, and inter-firm disputes.
In applied organizational diagnostics and managerial consulting, the scale serves as an evaluative framework. It allows corporate leaders, alliance directors, and supply chain strategists to benchmark their firm’s relational profile against their competitive partners. By identifying relational asymmetries—such as excessive contractual rigidity coupled with deficient inter-organizational trust, or heightened competitive rivalry undermining joint resource investment—the scale enables managers to calibrate governance structures before relational friction triggers catastrophic alliance breakdown. In academic research, the instrument provides an operationalized measurement model that can be embedded into broader structural equation modeling frameworks exploring firm innovativeness, alliance longevity, market agility, and organizational resilience.
5. Psychological Construct
The overarching construct captured by the scale is Organizational Coopetitor Behavior, defined as the collective pattern of organizational actions, governance mechanisms, relational dispositions, and tactical engagements executed by an enterprise in its relationship with a competing partner. Rather than treating coopetition as a uniform phenomenon, the instrument reflects a five-dimensional latent architecture:
1. Competition Intensity
This dimension evaluates the perceived frequency, magnitude, and aggressiveness of market-based rivalry between the allied enterprises. It captures the extent to which the collaborating firms actively confront one another in shared product-market segments, vie for the same customer accounts, deploy aggressive pricing strategies, and engage in preemptive innovation races. In coopetitive contexts, competition intensity generates cognitive tension and strategic vigilance, requiring managers to balance knowledge sharing within the alliance against the threat of commercial displacement outside it.
2. Conflict
The conflict dimension measures the presence, severity, and manifestations of operational and interpersonal disputes, friction, and emotional dissonance between the boundary-spanning personnel of both organizations. Inter-organizational conflict within coopetitive frameworks typically stems from goal incompatibility, opportunistic behavior, misaligned strategic priorities, or perceived inequities in joint value distribution. This dimension captures dysfunctional friction as well as latent grievances that, if unmitigated, undermine collaborative communication and destabilize relational cohesion.
3. Formality
Formality reflects the degree to which the inter-organizational partnership relies upon explicit, codified, and legalistic governance mechanisms. This construct assesses the presence of rigorous contractual agreements, standardized operating protocols, formal monitoring systems, non-disclosure covenants, and institutionalized dispute-resolution bodies. High formality serves as an ex-ante safeguarding strategy designed to minimize vulnerability to partner opportunism, protect proprietary trade secrets, and systematically delimit each party’s contractual rights and obligations.
4. Investments
The investments dimension captures the depth of tangible and intangible dedicated asset commitments deployed by the firm into the collaborative relationship. Rooted in the concept of asset specificity, this facet encompasses co-specialized technology, capital allocation, dedicated personnel, synchronized logistics, and idiosyncratic knowledge-sharing routines that possess substantially diminished economic utility outside the focal partnership. These commitments signal organizational credibility, foster strategic interdependence, and establish high economic barriers to alliance abandonment.
5. Trust
Inter-organizational trust assesses the institutionalized confidence that one firm maintains regarding the competence, benevolence, and relational integrity of the partner enterprise. This dimension measures psychological and structural expectations that the competing partner will fulfill its obligations, refrain from exploiting collaborative vulnerabilities, and prioritize mutual welfare even in the absence of explicit contractual enforcement. Trust functions as a relational governance tool that reduces transaction costs, accelerates strategic decision-making, and offsets formal legal constraints.
6. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of the Behavioural Coopetitor Profile synthesizes four central traditions in strategic management, organizational psychology, and behavioral economics:
Coopetition Theory and the Paradox Perspective
The foundational premise of the scale originates in coopetition theory, pioneered by Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996) and extended into industrial networks by Bengtsson and Kock (2000). Coopetition posits that business relationships rarely conform to zero-sum rivalry or frictionless collaboration; rather, business ecosystems are characterized by concurrent game-theoretic dynamics. Grounded in the broader paradox perspective in organizational psychology, coopetition does not seek to dissolve structural contradictions. Instead, it assumes that sustainable competitive advantage emerges from the continuous cognitive and operational balancing of contradictory forces: value creation (via collaborative integration) and value capture (via competitive differentiation).
The Relational View of Strategy
The inclusion of Trust and Investments draws directly from the Relational View articulated by Dyer and Singh (1998). This framework maintains that critical resources, competitive advantages, and supernormal returns frequently reside across organizational boundaries rather than solely within individual firms. Inter-firm competitive advantage is generated through relation-specific assets, inter-firm knowledge-sharing routines, complementary resource combinations, and effective relational governance. The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile operationalizes these mechanisms by measuring how asset specificity and trust-based behavioral norms establish social capital within competitive arenas.
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE)
The Formality and Conflict dimensions reflect Transaction Cost Economics, formulated by Oliver Williamson (1985). TCE postulates that under conditions of bounded rationality, asset specificity, and the behavioral hazard of opportunism, organizations must establish governance mechanisms to mitigate transaction hazards. Because cooperating competitors operate under an ever-present risk of knowledge leakage and client poaching, formal contractual structures and monitoring systems are introduced to protect economic rents. The scale explicitly measures the extent to which firms deploy formalization to control partner opportunism and resolve inevitable inter-firm friction.
The Behavioral Theory of the Firm
Finally, the instrument integrates behavioral foundations established by Cyert and March (1963), treating inter-firm interactions not as automated economic equations, but as socio-cognitive behavioral patterns mediated by managerial perceptions, organizational routines, and coalitional negotiations. The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile operationalizes these managerial perspectives, providing a systematic framework for assessing behavioral configurations in inter-firm alliances.
7. Validity
The psychometric validation of the Behavioural Coopetitor Profile was conducted across Polish manufacturing companies using a multi-step analytical process adhering to standards outlined by Bagozzi, Yi, and Singh (1991) and Fornell and Larcker (1981).
Content and Face Validity
Content validity was established through an iterative qualitative development protocol. The research team synthesized relevant literature on industrial marketing, strategic alliances, and coopetition to construct an exhaustive initial item pool. This pool was subjected to rigorous expert evaluation involving panels of academic researchers in organizational psychology and experienced operations executives. Items that demonstrated conceptual ambiguity, redundant phrasing, or inadequate contextual relevance to horizontal manufacturing partnerships were revised or discarded, ensuring high face validity.
Convergent Validity
The convergent validity of the latent factors was confirmed through structural equation modeling. In accordance with established statistical criteria:
- Standardized Factor Loadings: All standardized item factor loadings ($lambda$) across the 28 indicators exceeded the recommended cutoff threshold of 0.50, with the vast majority exceeding 0.70, indicating that each item captures a substantial portion of the variance of its target construct.
- Composite Reliability (CR): Composite reliability scores for all five latent dimensions exceeded the established benchmark of 0.70, ranging well above 0.85, confirming robust internal construct reliability.
- Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The AVE values across all five constructs systematically exceeded the classical 0.50 threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This confirms that each latent dimension captures more common variance from its indicators than measurement error.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity was established via the Fornell–Larcker criterion. For each of the five retained dimensions, the square root of the construct’s Average Variance Extracted ($\sqrt{ ext{AVE}}$) was calculated and compared against the inter-construct correlation coefficients between that factor and all other latent variables:
$$\sqrt{\text{AVE}_{i}} > |r_{ij}| \quad \forall j \neq i$$
In all instances, the square root of the AVE for every individual dimension was higher than its bivariate correlations with any other variable in the structural model. This statistical separation verifies that despite operating within a shared coopetitive framework, the five dimensions—Competition Intensity, Conflict, Formality, Investments, and Trust—represent empirically distinct latent constructs rather than overlapping facets of a single undifferentiated factor.
8. Reliability
The reliability of the Behavioural Coopetitor Profile was evaluated via internal consistency analysis, in alignment with classical test theory recommendations (DeVellis & Thorpe, 2021). The five latent dimensions demonstrated high internal consistency across all indicators:
| Latent Dimension | Cronbach’s Alpha ($\alpha$) | Composite Reliability (CR) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competition Intensity | ≥ 0.857 | > 0.70 | > 0.50 |
| Conflict | ≤ 0.916 | > 0.70 | > 0.50 |
| Formality | 0.857 – 0.916 range | > 0.70 | > 0.50 |
| Investments | 0.857 – 0.916 range | > 0.70 | > 0.50 |
| Trust | 0.857 – 0.916 range | > 0.70 | > 0.50 |
Across all five retained subscales, Cronbach’s alpha values fall comfortably within the recommended interval of 0.70 to 0.95. The observed minimum coefficient was $\alpha = 0.857$ and the observed maximum was $\alpha = 0.916$. Because none of the alpha coefficients exceeded 0.95, the instrument avoids the issue of indicator redundancy or narrow circumscription, demonstrating internal consistency across all latent dimensions without item bloat.
9. Factor Analysis
The factorial structure of the Behavioural Coopetitor Profile was established using a two-step factor analytic strategy incorporating both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
The initial structural exploration was performed through iterative EFA procedures using principal axis factoring with oblique rotation, recognizing that inter-organizational behavioral dimensions correlate within complex alliance environments. The iterative refinement required three distinct extraction rounds:
- Iterations 1 and 2: Early iterations identified initial item clusters, cross-loadings, and indicators exhibiting communalities below accepted psychometric standards. Items failing to load cleanly on their intended theoretical dimension or displaying substantial cross-loadings (loadings > 0.35 on multiple factors) were sequentially removed.
- Third Iteration: The third and final EFA iteration converged on a clean, parsimonious five-factor solution accounting for substantial variance. The remaining 28 items loaded clearly on their respective theoretical targets: Competition Intensity, Conflict, Formality, Investments, and Trust, demonstrating high construct consistency and clear factor delineation.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
To confirm the factor structure derived from the EFA, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was estimated using structural equation modeling. The empirical model demonstrated a good fit to the empirical data across absolute, relative, parsimony, and noncentrality-based fit criteria:
- Incremental and Relative Fit Indices: The Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) systematically surpassed the required 0.90 threshold, indicating strong relative model specification.
- Absolute and Parsimony Fit Indices: Absolute quality indices, including the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), conformed to accepted psychometric thresholds, indicating that the measurement model reproduces the observed covariance matrix without distortion. Parsimony-adjusted indices verified that the five-factor structural model remains parsimonious without over-parameterization.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
The complete operational characteristics of the Behavioural Coopetitor Profile are structured as follows:
- Test Type: Standardized multi-item self-report questionnaire / psychometric inventory.
- Intended Level of Analysis: Inter-organizational / Organizational dyad (completed by key organizational informants, e.g., strategic executives, alliance managers, boundary-spanning directors).
- Target Population: Manufacturing enterprises, industrial corporations, and related organizations engaged in horizontal collaborative relationships with direct competitors.
- Total Number of Items: 28 items.
- Factorial Subscales (5 Dimensions):
- Competition Intensity: Captures the magnitude of active market rivalry and competitive hostility between the allied firms.
- Conflict: Captures the frequency, intensity, and operational fallout of disputes, grievances, and interpersonal tensions.
- Formality: Captures the extent of formal governance, detailed legal contracts, written protocols, and institutionalized monitoring.
- Investments: Captures the depth of specialized capital, idiosyncratic assets, dedicated technology, and human resource deployments dedicated to the alliance.
- Trust: Captures organizational confidence in the benevolence, operational competence, and contractual fidelity of the partner.
- Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
- 1 = Strongly Disagree
- 2 = Disagree
- 3 = Somewhat Disagree
- 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
- 5 = Somewhat Agree
- 6 = Agree
- 7 = Strongly Agree
- Administration Procedure: Can be administered in paper-and-pencil format or through secure electronic surveying platforms. Completion time ranges between 10 and 15 minutes. Respondents are instructed to evaluate the statements in reference to an identified major competitor with whom their firm maintains an active cooperative arrangement.
- Scoring Protocol: Dimensional scores are generated by calculating the mean or sum score of the items corresponding to each respective subscale. No single composite score is calculated; the instrument is designed to generate a profile across the five distinct dimensions, highlighting relational imbalances, governance styles, and behavioral trade-offs.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Behavioural Coopetitor Profile was officially published in 2025 in the journal Industrial Marketing Management. Information regarding access, licensing, and administration permissions is summarized below:
- Publication Year: 2025.
- Commercial Fee: None. The authors have made the conceptual framework available for scientific research purposes without royalty fees.
- Copyright & Usage Permissions: While the overarching theoretical dimensions and psychometric metrics are published, the specific proprietary items remain under the intellectual property of the authors and the journal publisher (Elsevier). Non-commercial academic researchers seeking to use, translate, or adapt the complete 28-item instrument must direct an inquiry to the corresponding author:
Prof. Patrycja Klimas
Wroclaw University of Economics and Business
Department of Advanced Research in Management
Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wrocław, Poland
Email: [email protected]
12. References
The following references document the theoretical foundations, scale development methodology, and psychometric validation of the Behavioural Coopetitor Profile:
- Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: Two extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(91)90020-T
- Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-X
- Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation. Doubleday/Currency.
- Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.
- DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544379333
- Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
- Klimas, P., Sachpazidu, K., Stańczyk, S., Kawa, A., & Nadolny, M. (2025). The 5-dimensional behavioural coopetitor profile: How to measure it? Industrial Marketing Management, 124, 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.12.003
- Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press.