2.1. Value creation and appropriation and durability as the attribute of the relational strategy

The relational/network context of contemporary enterprises has triggered the need for research into the creation and appropriation of relationship value, becoming one of the main problems of strategic management [39, 40]. Value creation is defined as the total sum of value that is generated collectively through the joint effort of different partners (market stakeholders), while value appropriation is defined as the individual share of the value that a firm can capture [41]. From the perspective of strategic choices, companies can create value according to the logic of the value chain [42, 43] or the logic of the value network [34, 44]. The former refers to the concept of the economic path and means that every company occupies a position in the chain; upstream suppliers provide inputs before passing them downstream to the next link in the chain, their customer [44]. Value in this case is created on the basis of vertical/sequential interdependence: by each actor one after another [45]. In turn, value network logic focuses on creating value together [46]. A focal company and its different economic partners (suppliers, customers, competitors, or complementors) work together to co-produce value, which benefits each of them [47].

Regarding appropriating value, strategists must decide by which mechanism the value will be captured. Previous research in this regard provides many solutions that have been identified and analyzed from the perspective of various theories and streams, e.g., industrial marketing, resource-based view, game theory, stakeholder theory, justice theory, or negotiation theory [48, 49]. Generally, a focal firm may choose between mechanisms for protecting value and mechanisms for maximizing value. For value protection, isolating mechanisms are most commonly used [50]. These include both formal mechanisms—such as patents, copyrights and intellectual property rights, and formal contracts—and informal mechanisms such as confidentiality, secrecy, or hidden knowledge [51–53]. The value protected in this way does not increase the economic rent, but it rather aims to limit losses. Therefore, instead of protecting generated value, appropriation can be accomplished by maximizing value. For this purpose, the mechanisms for reconfiguring the resource base by efficiently acquiring, integrating, and releasing the resource bundle to obtain a relational rent are the ones most often mentioned [10, 17].

Value creation and appropriation as a result of collaboration are closely related and represent “two sides of the same coin.” The value created in a collaborative effort among exchange partners is further appropriated, wherein a focal firm might achieve superior value because of superior value creation, superior appropriation of the value pie, or a combination thereof [54]. The way value is created and appropriated affects the durability of the relational strategy, expressed in purposeful development, maintenance, or withdrawing from inter-organizational relationships [22]. The relational strategy maintains long-term and permanent relationships which will yield a relational rent for the company but eliminates those relationships which cease to be a source of relational rents. However, this requires long-term effort towards the relationships, trust [55, 56], commitment in cooperation [57, 58], or overcoming difficulties in maintaining relationships [59]. Value created according to the logic of the value chain assumes chain interdependence, in which entities focus primarily on logistical synchronization by solving exchange problems and unilateral learning when anticipating them [43, 60, 61]. In essence, the relationships established and maintained are of a transactional nature [62] focusing on getting the most out of individual transactions. However, as they are repeated, they may take on a forward-looking character, i.e., they may present potential for development towards long-term relationships. In the case of value network, a company and its partners are required to cooperate and constantly adapt to changing external and internal exchange conditions [63]. The collaborating entities are interdependent, and the quality and durability of their relationship depends on the commitment of the different entities and mutual trust. This impacts the effectiveness of the exchange and the satisfaction of the partners, while determining the durability of the relational strategy through decisions to maintain or break up the relationship.

On the other hand, the durability of inter-organizational relationships, and therefore of the relational strategy, depends on the direct and intentional efforts of the parties involved at capturing value [48] and the proportions and principles of its appropriation [64]. The mechanisms of protecting the values are primarily geared towards reducing losses [65]. They protect the company’s valuable resources, especially knowledge, but they also generate high costs. They do not foster an increase in economic rent, thus limiting the durability of IORs, and further, that of the relational strategy. On the other hand, the mechanisms of value maximization cause an increase in the economic rent through inter-organizational synergy and affect trust and satisfaction with the relationships, which may result in it being more durable.

In light of the above, having analyzed the durability of collaboration in the context of choosing the logic of value creation and the mechanisms of its appropriation, we put forward the following hypotheses:

1. H1a: The value created in the value network improves the durability of the relational strategy
2. H1b: The value appropriated by maximizing mechanisms improves the durability of the relational strategy.

2.2. Choice of partners and heterogeneity as an attribute of relational strategy

The second strategic choice in shaping a company’s relational strategy is the selection of key partners. The above selection involves two thought constructs: the type of partners in a relationship and the criteria for selecting these partners. The type of partner is usually defined from the perspective of stakeholders, understood as groups or individuals that can influence the achievement of the organization’s goals [66]. In the case of relational strategy, market (external) stakeholders—i.e., those operating in the company’s environment—are analyzed [67]. External stakeholders are subject to different classifications. For example, Scuotto et al. [68] propose a division of partners into two categories: market partners and scientific partners. The former include customers, suppliers, and competitors, while the latter include universities and research centers. In turn, Sofka and Grimpe [69] and Ritala et al. [70] identify market partners (customers and competitors) and technology partners (universities, research centers, and consultants). However, the most common criterion used to classify types of relational partners is the economic path. Based on this criterion we can distinguish two categories of partners: partners on the sector’s economic path and partners outside the economic path [71, 72]. The first category includes suppliers, customers, and competitors; the second category includes all entities outside the economic path, e.g., research institutes, companies from other sectors, social, financial, or governmental organizations, etc. Despite the lack of a single, universal typology of partners that would be used by all researchers, certain types of relationship partners are universal in nature, as they are included in most classifications, regardless of the division criterion adopted. These include suppliers, customers, and competitors, the latter only being stakeholders when there is an exchange relationship with the company [73].

The second construct considered in the framework of selecting key collaboration partners is the criteria for partner selection. As with definitions for stakeholders, there is no consensus on the set of criteria that companies should apply in this selection. Researchers have indicated strategic and technological alignment [74], resource alignment [75, 76], competitive position and common goals [77], personal preferences and personal compatibility [78], trust [56, 79], cultural similarity [80], reputation [81], financial standing, cost, and quality [82], and many more. Most researchers adapt the list of criteria for partner selection to the type of collaboration discussed in a given study, or take into account the selected criteria to emphasize their particular role. Furthermore, Pidduck [75] stresses that choosing a partner is a complex process, often occurring through complex negotiations rather than a rigid and rational procedure, which is also determined by the company’s previous experience.

The selection of key partners by their type and selection criteria influences the attribute of heterogeneity of a relational strategy, expressed by the complexity and multiplicity of inter-organizational relationships [83, 84]. Maximizing the number of relationships—with different partners and with different objectives and resource profiles—helps to gain an advantage using a relational strategy, though the existence of many different relationships requires consideration of their interdependence [1]. Taking into account the strategic selection of key partners in the context of the heterogeneity of the relational strategy, we have formulated the following hypotheses:

1. H2a: The more actively a company develops its inter-organizational relationships with different groups of partners, the more heterogeneous the relational strategy.
2. H2b: The more varied the criteria for partners’ selection, the more heterogeneous the relational strategy.

2.3. Inter-organizational behavior and originality as an attribute of relational strategy

Inter-organizational relationships can take one of four forms: coexistence, competition, cooperation, and coopetition [24]. Of these four types, only two (cooperation and coopetition) are based on collaboration, including the convergence of interests, and are a source of relational rents. Cooperation is defined as a relationship in which individuals, groups, and organizations interact by sharing complementary capabilities and resources, or leverage these for the purpose of mutual benefit [85]. It is a kind of collaboration with non-competitive partners (suppliers, customers, and complementors). Cooperation can be considered from the transactional or relational [51], which is also known as market-focused strategy and relationship-focused strategy of cooperation [86, 87]. From the transactional view, cooperation relies on formal rules and objectives [88]. The basis of a transactional relationship is the transfer of products of a certain value [89], and a continuing relationship requires the use of various types of price incentives, which encourage repeat transactions and determine its future value [90]. The effectiveness of incentives depends on the contractual provisions and—as Malhotra and Lumineau [91] point out—contracts based on extensive and detailed regulations and aimed at controlling and minimizing the risk of opportunistic behavior reduce the goodwill within the relationship and the willingness to continue the relationship [57]. From the relational view, cooperation is strongly determined by repeated interactions and exchanges between the partners that establish a mutual understanding, social identification, and trust between them [88]. This kind of cooperation is long-term and includes non-competitive partners with whom a firm has developed trust through existing ties; e.g., friends, acquaintances, and their recommendations [87]. Trust-based cooperation (partnership) improves communication and the exchange of information between partners [92] and creates an atmosphere of mutual understanding for the contract to be carried out within, which is particularly important in unpredictable situations [19].

On the other hand, collaboration with competitive partners that simultaneously combines cooperation and competition between enterprises is called coopetition [93]. Scholars have indicated many different drivers, both external and internal, which lead to coopetition [94]. Generally, coopetition is formed and developed either by the will of firms or on demand (through pressure). Voluntary coopetition is often driven by high uncertainty, shorter product lifecycles, the convergence of multiple technologies, and increasing R&D expenditures [95, 96], as well as access to resources, expanding markets, and the desire to improve efficiency or competitive position [97]. Coopetition is also a result of institutional, competitive, and customer pressures [94]. The influence of customers on the formation of coopetition is particularly important, and buyers often explicitly demand that competitors cooperate in order to get the best possible product, by combining technologies of the respective coopetitors.

Cooperation and coopetition are elements of the value network and sources of relational rent. The distinguishing feature of relational rent is idiosyncrasy, which means that the rent is closely linked to a specific relationships or specific partners. In this sense, the relational rent is non-imitable and rare in its originality [30]. Originality as an attribute of a relational strategy is the result of selecting exceptional partners (both competitive and non-competitive) and configuring the relationships established. Different configurations of relationships may arise around the company, such as chain or network relationships, which are deliberately shaped to achieve strategic goals [98]. Inter-organizational relationships may lead to the creation of relatively open structures such as a network, but also to much more enclosed ones because the social closeness (clique), or because of familial bonds (clans) [99]. Therefore, the originality of the relational strategy is fostered by the relationship arrangements covering both cooperation and coopetition relationships; however, due to social embeddedness [100] and long-term intent, these are primarily the relationships of partnership and voluntary coopetition. Therefore, we formulated another hypotheses:

1. H3a: The more inter-organizational relationships are based on partnership cooperation, the more original the relational strategy is.
2. H3b: The more inter-organizational relationships are based on voluntary coopetition, the more original the relational strategy is.

2.4. A way of establishing relational strategy and formalization as its attribute

The last strategic choice is the method of establishing the relational strategy. The way a strategy is created is one of the most disputed issues in strategic management [101]. The importance of strategic analysis [102] supports the view that strategy is a result of rational/analytical processes directed by top managers. Such strategies are referred to as deliberate strategies because they arise from deliberate decisions [103]. On the other hand, strategies may emerge through adaptation to circumstances [104], as indicated by evolutionary theory, thus being the result of ad hoc, incremental, or even accidental actions taken at the lower levels of management. The process of establishing them is an effect of experimentation and searching for the best way to develop, and those strategies are called emergent. However, in practice, the process of creating a strategy is almost always a combination of centrally created rational design and decentralized adaptation [105]. Similarly, the relational strategy combines these two approaches. On the one hand, inter-organizational relationships and their systems are formed intentionally (they are a conscious choice of decision-makers indicating whether to establish, maintain, develop, or withdraw from a given relationship), while on the other hand, they are emergent in nature and are shaped from ad hoc actions and opportunities that arise.

Inter-organizational relationships can be divided into formal (contract-based) and informal (trust-based) [106]. Managers make deliberate choices between formal and informal relationships, and then agree on this choice with each partner. Therefore, the degree to which the relationships are formalized—distinguishing between contractual relationships and social relationships—appears to be another attribute of the relational strategy [107]. It should be noted that formal relationships are an attempt to design the future and a way of responding to uncertainty, by reducing the ambiguity of relationships. Thus, we assume that formal relationships are characterized by a relational strategy shaped by a predominantly deliberate approach, while informal ones based on trust and social ties more often result from a mainly emergent approach. Therefore, we formulated another hypothesis:

1. H4 – The more the relational strategy is deliberately shaped, the more it is characterized by formal relationships.

2.5. Company outcomes from collaboration

The desire to achieve a relational rent is the foundation for creating a relational strategy for a company. The question, however, arises here as to what effects (viewed from the point of view of benefits and costs) its implementation will bring. The outcomes of a collaboration may be tangible or intangible [108], they can constitute a mutual benefit or benefit only one firm [109], and they then can contribute to both the focal firm’s performance or the performance of the alliance/network [15]. The research to date has focused primarily on identifying the benefits of inter-organizational collaboration, indicating that from the focal firm’s perspective, cooperation and coopetition contribute to achieving, in particular, 1) resource outcomes, including access to partners’ various resources—especially knowledge and sharing and creating shared resources (see, for example [110, 111]); 2) financial outcomes, including reduced operating cost—especially transactional costs, increased revenues, or the option of acquiring funds for shared investment (e.g. [112–114]); 3) organizational outcomes, which include primarily improvements to processes such as better quality, faster delivery time, or greater flexibility [115] and more innovation [116]; and 4) positional outcomes, including greater bargaining power of the entities compared to those outside the inter-organizational system/network [65, 117].

Meanwhile, the implementation of a relational strategy may involve risk, costs, and consequences as well as benefits (e.g. [7, 37]). Similarly, in this case they can be classified into four groups [118]: 1) dependency outcomes, which manifest themselves in a dependence on partners in the relationship, the imposition of collaboration conditions by the stronger entities, and the “blurring” of responsibilities (e.g. [119, 120]); 2) financial outcomes, which are the inverse of the benefits achieved, and therefore are expressed in increased operating costs or reduced revenues [36]; 3) organizational effects, which may have the opposite effect to benefits, i.e., a worsening of the processes involved or less flexible operation [121]; and 4) positional effects, which express a reduction in the bargaining power compared to the entities outside the inter-organizational arrangement [65]. In addition, the frequently indicated risks of cooperation and/or coopetition include a risk of knowledge leakage [106], conflicts between partners [122], and the possibility of opportunistic behaviors appearing [123, 124].

Which outcomes a focal firm achieves from organizational collaboration depends on many factors determining this collaboration, including strategic choices that affect the attributes of the relational strategy. We assume that long-term interfirm relationships with diverse partners, based on trust and partnership, taking into account difficult-to-imitate configurations, often shaped in an emergent way, should favor the benefits of collaboration and reduce the associated risks and consequences. Therefore, we formulated further two hypotheses:

1. H5 – The more a relational strategy is characterized by a) durability, b) heterogeneity, and c) originality, and the less by d) formalization, the stronger the positive outcomes a focal firm achieves from interfirm collaboration will be.
2. H6 – The more a relational strategy is characterized by a) durability, b) heterogeneity, and c) originality, and the less by d) formalization, the less the negative outcomes a focal firm achieves from interfirm collaboration will be.

Putting together the strategic choices and the attributes of the focal firm’s relational strategy with the outcomes achieved from interfirm collaboration, we built a conceptual model presented on Fig 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Conceptual model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254531.g001

3.1. Sample and data collection

The research was conducted from December 2018 to May 2019. The study population included small (with 10–49 employees), medium-sized (with 50–249 employees), and large (250 or more employees) companies. Micro-companies (with up to 9 employees) were deliberately eliminated, as such entities typically have fewer and less complex inter-organizational relationships due to their limited resources and scope of operations. In 2018 in Poland, the total number of companies—excluding micro-companies—there were 52,662 small entities (73.6%), 15,210 medium-sized entities (21.3%), and 3,674 large companies (5.1%) [125]. Our goal was to construct a sample statistically representative. Therefore, we used a probabilistic, random-layer selection to ensure representativeness of the sample and to generalize the results [126]. We also used available sample size calculators, assuming a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5% [127]. The results showed that the minimum required sample size was 382 entities in the case of the first calculator [128], and 383 entities in the case of the second calculator [129]. The survey frame was the National Economy Register (REGON) database, from which a gross sample was taken, i.e., a list of entities several times larger than the assumed sample population (the initial database consisted of 1,856 records). We obtained a total of 400 complete survey responses. In this regard, the sample was representative for Poland in terms of company size. The response rate was 21.5%, which is comparable to other inter-organizational studies, with response rates ranging from 10% to 30% (e.g. [88, 130]).

Additionally, the sector (production, retail, or services) and industry were taken into account according to the Polish Classification of Activities [131] in order to eliminate excessive concentration in one area, e.g., manufacturers in a given industry.

The research was conducted using the multi-mode method, which combines Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) and Computer-Assisted Web Interviews (CAWI); this translates into higher-quality data, in terms of precision, accuracy, error rate, and reliability [132]. The research tool was a standardized questionnaire, and the respondents were business owners (65.5%) or representatives of top management (33.5%). We received verbal consent from respondents for participating in our research and this consent was informed. Table 1 presents a profile of the surveyed companies.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Profile of responding companies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254531.t001

Most of the studied firms were mature entities, i.e., ones that have been operating on the market from 11 to 20 years (45.25%) or for over 20 years (33.5%), which means that they have experience in forming, developing, or withdrawing from inter-organizational relationships. In almost half of the firms, activities related to production prevailed, and the majority of the firms were active on the domestic market (67.25%).

To test for nonresponse bias, we examined differences between early and late respondents [133] on key company characteristics such as the age and size of the company and the dominant type of activity (divided into production, services, and retail). We took into account the first and last 25% of the respondents in our sample. The results of the U Mann–Whitney tests for company age and size, and a chi-squared test for dominant type of activity did not reveal any significant differences at a 5% significance level. Thus, our results should not be affected by a nonresponse bias.

We also checked the common method bias to avoid any issues for self-reported data from a single informant. Following the procedures recommended by Podsakoff et al. [134], we took several approaches, including 1) using multiple-item constructs to capture all of the key variables and grouping the construct items in sections instead of variables, 2) assuring respondents that there were no right or wrong answers and encouraging them to respond as honestly as possible, 3) avoiding ambiguous questions and vague concepts and keeping questions as simple as possible [135]. Moreover, we used the following methods: Harman’s one-factor test, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and validation of the model’s fit to examine the severity of common method bias as Podsakoff et al. [134] suggested. Our analysis, i.e. an unrotated principal component factor analysis, principal component analysis with varimax rotation, and principal axis analysis with varimax rotation as well as CFA results showed that the single-factor model did not fit the data well. Thus, there is little threat of common method bias in our study.

3.2. Measures

We prepared the survey items based on the literature. Simplicity in scoring was achieved using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” We performed both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to validate the measures of the study. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to reduce the items down to resulting variables. We then conducted a CFA to assess the unidimensionality of each construct. We employed a rigorous process to purify and validate the measurement scale items, as advocated by Gerbing and Anderson [136] and Hair et al. [137], assessing the validity and reliability of particular constructs.

3.3 Data analysis

The hypotheses were tested by structural equation modelling (SEM), which offers the advantage of flexibility in matching the theoretical model with the data and allows the researcher to describe unobservable latent variables [139]. In the case of formalization as an attribute of a relational strategy, it was impossible to define a latent variable. That is why we used the observable variable here. To conduct various statistical tests, we employed two statistical packages: Statistica and Amos.