Antecedents of coopetition in small and medium-sized hospitality firms

3 Coopetition, which is entering cooperation with competitors, lets firms overcome the 4 challenges of uncertain environments and their intense competition and pressure to innovate. 5 The hospitality industry frequently experiences this kind of competition. It is also dominated 6 by family-run small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are inclined towards 7 cooperation due to their limited size and resources, along with their strong social ties. 8 Investigating hospitality SMEs’ decision-making, this mixed-method study tests the 9 antecedents of coopetition in 171 hospitality SMEs in western Austria. Its findings show that 10 economic benefits and destination networks directly and positively influence coopetition, while 11 family involvement indirectly and positively moderates the effect of environmental conditions 12 and social relationships on coopetition. Information from follow-up interviews with 15 firm 13 managers complements the understanding of these effects. Our findings encourage destinations 14 to establish services helping family firms to coopete. 15 16

Small firms are defined differently by region; they account for a large share of most 28 economies. In 2018, following the EUROSTAT definition of less than 250 employees, SMEs 29 accounted for 80% of employment in the European accommodation and food service industry 30 (EUROSTAT, 2020). This number was 60% for the United States, which defines small 31 businesses as those having up to 500 employees (Small Business Administration, 2020). Hence, 32 hospitality is characterized by SMEs, but additionally also by family firms accounting for more 33 than 90% of hospitality and tourism SMEs in Europe (Peters & Buhalis, 2013). 34 In spite of this, for years hospitality research never distinguished between family and 35 non-family firms when studying SMEs to understand issues such as their motives to open a 36 business (Ateljevic & Doorne, 2000). More recent research has increasingly investigated the 37 nuances of hospitality and tourism family firms regarding for example their entrepreneurial 7 related goals, commonly referred to as socio-emotional wealth (e.g., Mensching, Kraus, & 146 Bouncken, 2014). These include passing on the firm to the next generation, or building business 147 relations that have strong social ties (Berrone, Cruz, & Gómez-Mejía, 2012). This difference 148 rests foremost with the decision-maker who determines the operational activities, and often the 149 strategic direction of a firm. Classen et al. (2012) found that the decision-makers' behavior and 150 preferences determine strategic decisions for a company. 151 In family firms, these strategic decision-makers are usually family members who are 152 emotionally bound to the company, which can lead to situations where family goals are 153 prioritized over strategic firm goals (Cesinger et al., 2016). Social ties within the family and 154 beyond are often more important than financial benefits (Berrone,Cruz,155 2012), meaning family firms pursue the development and maintenance of long-term strategies 156 and perspectives, such as sustainable investments and growth (Kallmuenzer & Peters, 2018b) 157 or collaboration (Gast et al., 2019). Therefore, family involvement can influence a firm's 158 decision to engage in coopetitive behavior. 159

Hypotheses and conceptual model 160
Management and hospitality literature considers several antecedents of firms engaging in 161 coopetition. This section develops hypotheses to identify the coopetition antecedents relevant 162 to hospitality SMEs. An important note here is that, from a conceptual point of view, and for 163 coopetition in hospitality, the firm/industry level view by Gnyawali and Park (2009) is extended 164 to include the hospitality-specific context. Coopetition in hospitality is also fostered through 165 the often close social ties (Czernek-Marszałek, 2020) and interdependence of firms and their 166 tourism destinations (Strobl & Kronenberg, 2016) as they pursue their mutual benefits. 167 Hospitality firms, especially hotels, are largely impacted by external contingencies such 168 as environmental challenges (Gnyawali & Park, 2009) and competition within and beyond their 169 destination. Bound to one location, hotels directly compete with others providing similar 170 products or services in the same market ( (Zach & Hill, 2017). 174 Furthermore, hospitality SMEs often lack the resources they need to shield themselves 175 from unwanted challenges; they can often look beyond their immediate destination market to 176 better understand global developments (Hwang & Lockwood, 2006). With this in mind, they 177 have a need to assess and reduce risks stemming from the unpredictability and uncertainty in 178 their economic environment (González, 2006;Padula & Dagnino, 2007 There are several advantages a firm can gain from both competition and cooperation. Whereas 183 competitive relationships are focused on the individual or private benefits of a focal entity, 184 cooperative relationships additionally create mutual or common benefits for all parties involved 185 (Morris et al., 2007), including the benefits perceived by the partner as collective (Czakon & 186 Czernek, 2016). Coopetitive relationships as a result include private and mutual benefits. For 187 small hospitality firms, Wang and Krakover (2008) found that decision-makers engage in either 188 cooperation or competition with others after considering the potential economic benefits for the 189 firm (competition) or the destination (cooperation). Hence, if economic benefits can be 190 generated for both the firm and the destination, then engaging in coopetition should be a suitable 191 path forward (Friedrichs Grängsjö, 2003). Finally, collaboration with others in the same 192 destination network can create economic benefits for them as well (Zach & Racherla, 2011). 193 We therefore argue that hospitality SMEs engage in coopetition when they perceive an 194 economic benefit for their business (such as improved competencies and products/services, a 195 stronger market position, and organizational effectiveness), as well as for the involved 196 partner/competitor and the destination (such as mutual competitive advantage, cost 197 Kallmuenzer, A., Zach, F. J., Wachter, T., Kraus, S., & Salner, P. (2021). Antecedents of coopetition in small and medium-sized hospitality firms. 2006), and to some extent the selection of innovation partners (Zach & Hill, 2017). 212 Czakon and Czernek (2016) propose that decision-makers rationally assess partner 213 aspects such as reputation, capabilities, and legitimacy. In addition, positive learning and a 214 trustworthy relationship provide favorable conditions for coopetition (Morris et al., 2007). 215 Mutual agreements are more reliable because their perceived risk is lower (Yilmaz & Kabadayi, 216 2006 (Wang & Krakover, 2008). In this kind of 226 situation, firms want to be optimally integrated while simultaneously pursuing their individual 227 and mutual goals (Chin, Chan, & Lam, 2008). As a result, firm willingness to share information 228 and adapt to the necessary requirements is higher than without commitment to dyadic 229 cooperation with partners and the destination. On the other hand, however, and due to their often stand-alone and family-focused 246 position, family firms also tend to be more vulnerable to environmental changes. As shown by 247 the related research on family businesses (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007) and tourism (Kallmuenzer 248 particularly in uncertain times. It can thus be hypothesized that in times of uncertain and 250 competitive environmental conditions, firms with high family involvement will more likely 251 engage in coopetition. 252 Furthermore, family SMEs strive for long-term relationships that have strong social ties 253 (Berrone et al., 2012). As family firms seek and maintain these long-term relationships 254 The questionnaire for this study was developed from scales previously mostly applied 280 in a non-tourism context. These were translated into German and back-translated into English 281 (Brislin, 1980). To further reduce measurement errors and comprehension issues, the 282 questionnaire was tested and adapted together with two hotel managers who also serve in 283 SMEs. Each company received an initial email, followed by a reminder email two weeks later. 287 This effort resulted in 171 fully completed questionnaires that were used for the data analysis. 288 The firms in the data were on average 41 years old, whereby most were micro-enterprises with 289 one to nine employees, common for this and many other tourism regions (WKO, 2019). The 290 firms had near-equal gender distribution of their business managers, and many were each more 291 than 50% family-owned, with a total of 91.23% of firms in the sample being family firms. 292 293

295
To allow a more detailed interpretation of results, the survey respondents were invited 296 to a qualitative follow-up interview to provide additional information to their responses. On-297 site expert interviews were conducted with 15 survey participants at their business locations 298 from May until July 2019. Data saturation was reached following these 15 interviews. 2020). The interviews were conducted in a narrative format. All of them were recorded and 305 transcribed, and lasted from 28 minutes to 1 hour and 32 minutes, with an average length of 46 306 minutes. All interviews were conducted in German, and key quotes were translated verbatim 307 into English. Table 2 provides an overview of the interviewed business managers' firms. 308 309  captured the sense of belonging to the destination network. All these constructs were measured 323 on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "strongly disagree" to 7 "strongly agree". Family 324 Involvement captured the proportion of managerial positions occupied by family members 325 (Chrisman et al., 2012), and was measured with a ratio ranging from zero to 100 percent. 326 Finally, several control variables were included. These were standard measures such as 327 number of employees as an indicator of firm size, year of founding, and gender of the business 328 manager. 329

Reliability and validity 330
A number of quality checks were conducted for all latent constructs. As the measurement items 331 were adapted to a new context, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Given the 332 main purpose of identifying and attaining composite scores of the factors underlying the 333 adapted measurement items, we also conducted a principal component analysis. Eigenvalues 334 showed that the first five factors explained 34%, 9%, 6%, 6%, and 5% of the variance, 335 respectively. Factors six to eight also had eigenvalues above one, although each explained less 336 than 3% of the variance. Solutions for five and eight factors were examined using varimax 337 rotation. The five-factor solution explained 55% of variance and was selected because it is 338 supported by theory and matched the bend in the scree plot. 339 A requirement of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is to exclude from the 340 measurement model items below the 0.6 threshold (Field, 2013). One item for the Destination 341 Network construct had to be dropped because it was below the threshold. All other items were 342 included for further analysis. In addition, the minimum values for Cronbach's  were above the 343 recommended value of 0.7, indicating a satisfactory reliability for all constructs (Hair, 2006), 344 and providing internal consistency. We were unable to attain a substantial increase in 345 Cronbach's  by deleting more items.  If the cooperation ceases between the companies, this destination will reduce its attractiveness.

0.6893
Some firms in the sector are essential for the performance level of this destination.

0.7222
The variety of tourist activities is essential for complementing the offer of this destination.

Factor 3 -Economic Benefits
Due to our collaborations, our firm creates more value than our cooperation partner by … … improving our existing competencies. 0.8105 … improving its products and services.

Factor 4 -Coopetition
We are in close competition with our partners. 0.8183 We collaborate with competitors to achieve a common goal. 0.4075 0.6762 Active competition with our collaborators is important to us. 0.8108

Factor 5 -Environmental Conditions
Competitors' behavior is unpredictable. 0.6022 Competitors' behavior has a great effect on the firm's performance.

0.7019
There are many firms offering products and services that can replace our product or service. In terms of multicollinearity, inter-factor correlations had to be below 0.65, and the 350 threshold for the variance inflation factor (VIF) values was 10 (Field, 2013).  such, this study is one of the first to provide empirical insights into coopetition of hospitality 516 SMEs, which also contributes not only to hospitality research, but to coopetition research at 517 large. 518 Our findings highlight considerations for economic benefits and destination networks 519 as antecedents of coopetition among hospitality SMEs, which strengthens the idea that tourism 520 coopetition is a socially embedded economic activity (Czernek-Marszałek, 2020). Therefore, 521 looking at it from one single perspective be it either economic or social would be incomplete. 522 Moreover, for firms with a high degree of family involvement, we found that uncertain and 523 competitive environmental conditions as well as social relationships are antecedents of 524 coopetition. These findings further emphasize the relevance of family involvement for social 525 embeddedness (Kallmuenzer & Peters, 2017). interdependencies. This includes an awareness of the importance of the destination and other 575 destination businesses for the focal SME, and the importance of the SMEs for the destination 576 and its businesses. Hence, a destination network involves the firm's interdependence regarding 577 destination attractiveness and performance, as well as a firm's commitment towards the 578 destination network (Chin et al., 2008;Wang & Krakover, 2008). This means that the 579 performance of coopetitive hospitality firms is not only dependent on their own competencies, 580 but also on the destination network they belong to (Peters & Kallmuenzer, 2018;Tajeddini, 581 Martin, & Ali, 2020). This finding also plays a major role for destination management 582 organizations, as firms are willing to enter coopetitive relationships when there is a clear benefit 583 for the destination (Wang & Krakover, 2008). Furthermore, firms within the destination know 584 that the destination network is crucial for most of the involved firms within the destination, and 585 that it is important that they pull together and cooperate. 586 In addition to the destination network, economic benefits were seen as the most relevant 587 for coopetition propensity among hospitality SMEs. Coopetition implies common benefits 588 (although not necessarily a fair distribution of them), and their respective inputs (Padula & 589 Kallmuenzer, A., Zach, F. J., Wachter, T., Kraus, S., & Salner, P. (2021). Antecedents of coopetition in small and medium-sized hospitality firms. For family-run hospitality SMEs, social relationships and environmental conditions 594 were seen as relevant antecedents of coopetition propensity. Knowing about these antecedents 595 is not only important for family business managers, but also for non-family firms to coopete 596 with them (Berrone et al., 2012). Social relationships might play a crucial role when it comes 597 to the decision-making between cooperation partners from the family business side (Alves & 598 Meneses, 2015), so it might be worthwhile to establish long-term relationships that can enable 599 optimal responses in times of uncertainty and intense competition. 600

Limitations and future research 601
Some limitations in this study should be acknowledged, which can also provide sources of 602 future research. While this study captures core constructs for achieving coopetition in the 603 hospitality industry, future research could investigate the performance outcomes of this kind of 604 behavior (Bouncken & Fredrich, 2012). 605 Moreover, it would be interesting to investigate the role of family business owner 606 aspects such as leadership traits and family characteristics, including the regional network and 607 transgenerational thinking that could possibly help maintain coopetitive relationships 608 (Kallmuenzer et al., 2019). 609 Concerning the phenomenon of social embeddedness of tourism firms in their 610 destination, future research might want to investigate the issue of over-embeddedness, also 611 called the paradox of embeddedness, which can threaten business performance as the network 612 only focuses on its relationship instead of adaptation to market changes 613 2020; Uzzi, 1997). 614 Kallmuenzer, A., Zach, F. J., Wachter, T., Kraus, S., & Salner, P. (2021). Antecedents of coopetition in small and medium-sized hospitality firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 99. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103076 28 Furthermore, the root of taking coopetition for granted lies at the intersection of 615 competitive dynamics and institutional pressure, which to date has received little attention in 616 hospitality research. However, external pressures can trigger vast internal changes such as new 617 business models for continued firm success (Moscardo, 2008). A future study could also 618 investigate the effect of coopetition on hospitality firm performance (Bouncken & Fredrich, 619 2012), potentially at the destination level as it regards destination performance. 620 A single-respondent one-off survey design was chosen for the quantitative part of this 621 study, which always creates the risk of potential bias. This risk was mitigated by follow-up 622 interviews, which allowed for further interpretation of the identified effects. A more 623 longitudinal study accompanying hospitality SMEs and their cooperative ventures could 624 provide further insights into internal decision-making processes and help determine how, for 625 example, the institution of the family simultaneously affects multiple aspects of a family-run 626 hospitality firm; for such a longitudinal single-case study approach in tourism, see e.g. Warren,627 Becken, and Coghlen (2018). 628 Finally, this empirical research was conducted in western Austria; other tourism 629 destinations might show different results due to their specific regional and cultural 630 characteristics. 631