Bringing the Repertoire Together

This concluding chapter assembles the complete repertoire of proposed motifs—identity, representation, change, containment, and conduit—together with verbal affirmations for each. Summarizing conclusions from previous chapters, it describes each motif’s respective cognitive underpinnings and its distinctive entailments. It also proposes that divisions over practices such as the appropriate disposal of consecrated elements and the legitimacy of reservation and adoration have arisen from differences in these entailments and that a multiply metaphorical approach can help churches practice mutual forbearance and respect. Multiply metaphorical thinking provides access to otherwise inaccessible truths. No metaphor is the whole truth, and each unique, irreplaceable metaphor needs to be complemented and counterbalanced by others.

The Impact of Multimarket Competition on Innovation Strategy: Evidence from the Korean Mobile Game Industry

Multimarket contact (MMC) refers to the situation in which more than two firms simultaneously compete with each other in multiple products and/or geographical markets. Most studies on MMC have explored how the market overlap creates “mutual forbearance”, which lessens the intensity of rivalry. While prior studies have mainly focused on how reduced rivalry from MMC influences market-related decisions, only a few have paid attention to its impact on innovation activities. The purpose of this research is to explore how multimarket competition influences different stages of innovation. Specifically, we focus on three stages of innovation: Content development, commercialization, and protection of IPs (Intellectual Property). This study is conducted as an exploratory case research based on the in-depth analysis of two leading Korean Mobile game companies. Based on our findings, we explain how mutual forbearance and observability of the rival’s competitive action influence the choice of strategic decisions across different stages of innovation.

Competitive Dynamics

This article introduces research in competitive dynamics, a collection of work that has developed within the field of strategic management since the late 1980s. Competitive dynamics is the study of interfirm rivalry constituted of competitive actions and responses, their micro- and macro-level context as well as their antecedents and consequences (Chen and Miller 2012, cited under Reviews). Related research addresses fundamental questions such as: “Why do firms engage in competitive rivalry?” “What characterizes the competitive interaction between firms?” “How do focal firms’ competitive actions and rivals’ responses influence firm performance?” “How do contextual factors influence competitive dynamics?” Competition has long been at the center of academic debate, starting with the analysis on the functioning of economic markets and Adam Smith’s welfare competition. While this debate had traditionally been dominated by economists, scholars such as Michael Porter introduced a management perspective on competition. Within the management discipline, two conceptions of competition developed. In a more static conception based on economic theory, competition was formalized as an inherent characteristic of market structures, viewing market forces as determinants of the degree and the type of competition within an industry (Baum and Korn 1996, cited under Multimarket Contact, Multimarket Competition, and Mutual Forbearance). A second conception was motivated by Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction” and the Austrian school of economics (Smith, et al. 2001, cited under Reviews). This dynamic conception of competition accentuates the individual behavior of each competing firm (Baum and Korn 1996, cited under Multimarket Contact, Multimarket Competition, and Mutual Forbearance) and became known as “competitive dynamics research.” It assumes that performance differences between firms operating in the same industry are the result of competitive actions that are aimed at obtaining successive temporary advantages (Young, et al. 1996, cited under Competitive Actions: Characteristics, Drivers, and Performance Outcomes). Since the beginning of the 1990s, the competitive dynamics research program has flourished, and a large body of work has emerged within the literature on competitive strategy, consisting of several sub-streams such as competitive action and response, first-mover advantage, and multimarket competition(Ketchen, et al. 2004, cited under Reviews). Research within these sub-streams is largely unified by its reliance on a common theoretical perspective, the awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) framework (Chen 1996, cited under Awareness-Motivation-Capability Framework). Leading scholars in the field of competitive dynamics are, among others, Ming-Jer Chen, Walter J. Ferrier, Danny Miller, and Ken G. Smith.

The elephant in the room of mutual forbearance

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain how a multi-market firm develops the motivation to forbear from competition.Design/methodology/approachA two-way fixed effects model with Driscoll and Kraay standard errors investigates the research question with panel data collected from the US scheduled passenger airline industry.FindingsThe results demonstrate that although the interaction of multi-market contact with strategic similarity impairs a firm’s forbearance from competition, the same interaction promotes it as firm performance deteriorates, supporting the hypotheses.Research limitations/implicationsPerformance explains not only how forbearance emerges out of coincidental multi-market contact but also reconciles the mixed evidence for the impact of the two-way interaction between multi-market contact and strategic similarity on forbearance.Practical implicationsAntitrust authorities should pay more attention to low performing firms than to high performing firms in their investigations. Also, managers of multi-market firms should identify multi-market rivals with low performance as targets for the initiation of forbearance.Originality/valueThis study revises the mutual forbearance theory to align it with the accumulating empirical evidence that otherwise refutes its assumption and thereby improves theory’s descriptive and predictive power.