Ambidexterity in coopetition: how decision-making processes shape knowledge sharing-protection balance for new product development performance

Purpose This study aims to display how firms achieve a balance between knowledge sharing and protection, termed ambidextrous knowledge management, in coopetitive contexts. It explores how two key decision-making dimensions, procedural rationality and organizational politics, affect this balance and influence new product development (NPD) performance. Design/methodology/approach The study draws on survey data from 292 manufacturing firms in China. A quantitative approach is used to test the relationships among procedural rationality, politics, ambidextrous knowledge management and NPD performance, using structural equation modeling for hypothesis testing. Findings The results show that procedural rationality enhances both knowledge sharing and protection, with an even stronger influence on ambidextrous knowledge management. In contrast, organizational politics hinders sharing but reinforces protection, ultimately weakening ambidexterity. Moreover, ambidexterity mediates the effects of both procedural rationality and politics on innovation outcomes. Practical implications Managers should foster rational, information-driven decision-making processes to strengthen their firms’ ability to manage knowledge ambidextrously in coopetition. They should also recognize the risks of internal political behavior, which can distort strategic decisions and reduce innovation effectiveness. Originality/value This study introduces ambidextrous knowledge management as a critical capability for managing coopetitive tensions. It uniquely integrates decision-making theory into the knowledge management literature, offering a new process-based explanation for how firms navigate the paradox of sharing and protecting knowledge to drive innovation.