Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to discourse the essence and utility of (re)emergence theory as the starting point of understanding and interpreting organizational routines dynamics as well as to propose a conceptual framework reflecting both epistemological and methodological value as the keystone of analysing the rationale of organizational routines and the process of their emergence.Design/methodology/approach: The paper is based on extensive literature studies.Findings: Referring to the research problem concerning the reconciliation organizational routines and the emergence phenomenon, the findings complement the insights of the dominant theoretical perspectives in organizational routine theory, providing a more comprehensive understanding of organizational dynamics by directly addressing the heretofore intractable phenomenon of emergence. In addition, it is going to be a well-justified epistemological base to operationalize routines – not onlyper se, but also with regard to the mechanisms enacted.Originality/value: Routines change over time and the current studies results are not sufficient to understand these changes yet. Interpreting organizational routines from the emergence theory perspective reveals their soft, indeterministic, and unpredictable nature and ought to render the scholars dealing with that phenomenon interpretatively and methodologically cautious. Emergence is a priori embedded in organizational routines’ context. The considerations included in the paper are salient regarding ontological and epistemological issues as they emphasize specific thought and research directions in the field of organization study eventually. Emergence ideas may play a part in discussions of spontaneous order, particularly by implementing it to routines construct. A major issue is the role of these ideas and processes within organizational evolution.

PURPOSE: Although coopetition was defined three decades ago and is intensively investigated, its theoretical and research cognition remains far from thoroughly understood. The lack of conceptual consistency prevents researchers from conducting comparable research, leading to more generalizable results, and thus from building coherent knowledge. This study addresses the above shortcoming by the development of operationalizations of two types of attributes assigned to coopetition: strategic attributes characterizing coopetition strategies and relational attributes characterizing coopetitive relationships. METHODOLOGY: In our study, we adopted a two-step research process consisting of qualitative verification of a list of 8 coopetition attributes (2 strategic and 6 relational) identified in prior literature as relevant for coopetition success and the development of integrative conceptualization and measurement approaches for them. The verification was conducted through focus group interviews with scholars experienced in coopetition research and senior managers from firms adopting coopetition strategies. The measurement approaches for the positively verified attributes were developed through the integration of (1) approaches used so far in coopetition literature, (2) approaches used to date in the literature on the features of inter-organizational relationships, and (3) approaches that emerged during the focus group interviews. FINDINGS: This study shows two strategic (i.e., dynamics and paradoxicality) and six relational (i.e., asymmetry, complexity, intensity, mutual dependence, strength, and tensions) coopetition attributes as heterogeneously relevant for coopetition success and offers multi-item operationalizations for them derived from a combination of prior literature and qualitative research. IMPLICATIONS: Our paper shows strategic and relational attributes of coopetition as theoretically and practically relevant for coopetition success. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: As a contribution, this study offers scientifically grounded operationalizations of eight attributive success factors of coopetition. The developed measurement proposals can find valuable applications in two ways. First, coopetition researchers can use them in their studies, and a consistent measurement approach will allow for the comparison of research results, bringing us closer to drawing more general conclusions. Second, coopetition practitioners can use these proposals when managing coopetition, for instance, to evaluate, monitor, and intentionally shape them to make coopetition (more) successful.

In the article, an effort has been made to outline the differences and similarities between two essential concepts used in management science. It is the business ecosystem, also known as the organisational ecosystem and the stakeholder theory. Particular attention has been paid to the relations between organisations in an ecosystem and in the stakeholder model. The aims will be realised through discussing the following research questions: Q1) What is the characteristic structure and the traits of business ecosystem? Q2) What epistemological grounds do business ecosystem ideas grow on? Q3) What are epistemological toots of the stakeholder theory? Q4) What are the typical traits of the stakeholder idea used in strategic management? Finally, the criteria differentiating the two concepts have been presented and a comparison of stakeholder versus business ecosystem has been carried out.

Określenia "ewolucja" i "koewolucja" są szeroko wykorzystywane w badaniach organizacji, ale rzadko zdefiniowane. Często nie wiadomo, czy odnoszą się one do pojedynczych podmiotów czy grup jednostek. Jeżeli lokuje się badania w epistemologii ewolucyjnej, to niezbędne jest właściwe posługiwanie się właściwymi kategoriami. W opracowaniu przedstawiono systematyzację nurtów badawczych i formalnych teorii ewolucyjnych oraz zasadnicze założenia mieszczące się w ewolucyjnym nurcie zarządzania. Poczynając od podstaw ewolucji organizacyjnej, wskazano na koewolucyjną perspektywę badawczą. W końcu przedstawione zostały poglądy dotyczące obiektu analizy organizacyjnej ewolucji i koewolucji.