Navigating Paradoxical Tensions in the Context of Coopetition: Emotional Transcendence in a Dutch Public–Private Partnership

ABSTRACT Transcendence has been recognized as the most effective response to paradox, yet it is perhaps also the most demanding. This article explores how organizational actors transcend paradoxical tensions that arise when simultaneously pursuing cooperation and competition. Drawing on a case study of a Dutch public–private partnership in which law enforcement agencies and financial firms collaborate to combat serious and organized crime, we examined the paradoxical tensions experienced by those involved in this coopetitive alliance and their efforts to transcend the conflicting emotions that arise from these tensions. Our study suggests that transcending such emotional ambivalence involves not only the enactment of different rhetorical and behavioural practices, but also various emotional practices, which we have termed emotional transcendence. These emotional practices vary in their focus (individual, group, organizational), and are used alternately and interchangeably with rhetoric and behaviour to transcend emotional ambivalence. By exploring the paradoxical emotions in a unique coopetitive setting, we contribute to the literature on emotions and paradox and open up interesting avenues for future research.


Introduction
Interorganizational relationships that involve the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition, which scholars have termed 'coopetition' (Bouncken et al., 2015;Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996;Gnyawali et al., 2016), are inherently paradoxical as they often involve organizations with contrasting strategic objectives, operational routines and cultures. As 'competition and cooperation are among the most noted paradoxical organizational phenomena' (Chen, 2008, p. 290), the novel context of coopetition is rife with tensions and contradictions that must be managed (Gnyawali et al., 2016;Bengtsson et al., 2016). Although existing research emphasizes the productivity benefits of coopetitive alliances (Pitelis, 2013), the paradoxical nature of coopetition tends to evoke multiple inconsistent positive and negative emotions, also known as emotional ambivalence (Ashforth et al., 2014;Radu-Lefebvre & Randerson, 2020;Raza-Ullah et al., 2020). Because such ambivalence can significantly affect interorganizational relationships, it is important to understand how organizations can transcend these paradoxical tensions and the conflicting emotions that arise from them.
Following Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 382), we define paradox as a form of tension whereby 'contradictory yet interrelated elements exist simultaneously and persist over time'. In interorganizational relationships that involve coopetition, a paradox arises both from the inherent dualities resulting from the concurrence of cooperation and competition and from contradictory views, interests and priorities of the organizations involved in these strategic settings (Gnyawali et al., 2016;Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). Consequently, studies have shown that settings of coopetition can simultaneously evoke both positive emotions, such as pride, trust, and excitement, and negative emotions, such as guilt, distrust and frustration (Radu-Lefebvre & Randerson, 2020;Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). Such emotional ambivalence can prompt counterproductive defences (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013;Lewis, 2000), which tend to contribute negatively to collaborative performance (Gnyawali et al., 2016;Raza-Ullah, 2020). In order to ensure effective and sustainable interorganizational collaboration, prior research has explored various organizational responses to paradoxes Smith & Lewis, 2011). Transcendence, which is our focus in this article, is one way organizations attend to contradictory yet interwoven demands simultaneously.
In relation to paradoxes, transcendence entails 'moving towards a higher plane of understanding in which paradoxical poles are understood as complex interdependences rather than competing interests' (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013, p. 249). Transcendence has been recognized as the most effective organizational response to paradox (Cunha et al., 2019;Lewis, 2000;Simpson & Berti, 2020), and scholars have begun to examine the rhetorical and behavioural practices that constitute transcendence (Abdallah et al., 2011;Bednarek et al., 2017;Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). However, these studies have remained largely silent on the role of emotions as a dimension of individual actors' experience of and efforts to transcend paradoxical tensions Putnam et al., 2016;Schad et al., 2016). This is somewhat surprising given that such strategic alliances are intrinsically paradoxical and emotionally charged (Radu-Lefebvre & Randerson, 2020;Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). In responding to these gaps, we aim to offer insights on how emotion-laden paradoxical tensions in interorganizational relationships emerge, are manifested, and transcended.
We pose the following research question: How do organizational actors transcend paradoxical tensions within coopetitive settings? To answer this question, we draw from a qualitative study of a Dutch multi-organizational, public-private partnership (PPP) in which public law enforcement agencies collaborate with financial institutions to combat serious and organized crime. As part of this partnership, law enforcement officials and private sector representatives collectively engage in detecting and prosecuting illicit financial facilitators. This partnership can be characterized as a setting of coopetition in which parties simultaneous pursue cooperation and competition.
This article offers several theoretical contributions. Firstly, we assert that the practices of transcendence serve as an essential element in understanding how decentred actors make sense of and address coexisting paradoxical tensions. Importantly, while prior research has alluded to the rhetorical and behavioural foundations of transcendence (e.g. Bednarek et al., 2017;Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), we reveal an important emotional dimension of the management of paradoxical tensions which has so far received little scholarly attention. We introduce the concept of emotional transcendence to describe various practices underlying organizational actors' responses to emotional ambivalence. Secondly, by focusing on how actors experience and respond to emotion-laden paradoxical tensions, we answer calls for research to explore the micro-foundations of organizational paradox (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018;Schad et al., 2016;Waldman et al., 2019). We show how the actors applied different forms of transcendence (rhetorical, behavioural, emotional) alternately and interchangeably, allowing them to align their organizational interests with a common agenda.

Paradoxical Tensions in the Context of Coopetition
Within interorganizational relationships, organizations often pursue cooperation and competition simultaneously. Scholars have termed this type of collaborative arrangements as coopetition (Bouncken et al., 2015;Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996;Gnyawali et al., 2016), which may be defined as 'a paradoxical relationship between two or more actors simultaneously involved in cooperative and competitive interactions, regardless of whether their relationship is horizontal or vertical' (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014, p. 182). Research suggests that when the different 'worlds' of cooperation and competition meet, for instance, in public-private partnerships, this could have major implications for the actors involved (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012). Coopetitive relationships are particularly susceptible to high degrees of tensions and contradictions, which is at the heart of paradox theory.
The literature on paradox emphasizes the 'persistent contradictions between interdependent elements' (Schad et al., 2016, p. 10) and distinguishes four main types of paradox that can arise within organizations: the paradoxes of organizing, performing, belonging, and learning (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013;Lüscher & Lewis, 2008;Smith & Lewis, 2011). Relationships involving the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition may include a multitude of such paradoxes Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). Studies have documented that paradoxes become especially evident under environmental conditions of change, scarcity and plurality (Smith & Lewis, 2011). The latter implies a variety of views determined by multiple stakeholders with diverse and often contradictory demands. Because of the duality of cooperation and competition, coopetitive relationships are likely to face identity clashes, roles conflicts and political strife, which may lead to extreme forms of emotional ambivalence (Radu-Lefebvre & Randerson, 2020;Raza-Ullah et al., 2014, 2020Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). Such a state of emotional ambivalence thus arises from actors' experience of multiple, conflicting emotions when pursuing the contradictory yet interrelated demands inherent in coopetition.

Responding to Paradoxical Tensions
The simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition confronts actors with paradoxical tensions, which often makes managing coopetitive relationships a challenging task (Gnyawali et al., 2016;Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016): the contradictory, yet interrelated, poles of coopetition 'seem logical in isolation, but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously' (Lewis, 2000, p. 760). While previous studies have adopted a paradox lens to explain the occurrences of tensions in coopetitive relationships Raza-Ullah et al., 2014), this literature also offers important insight into how actors experience and respond to the emotional ambivalence that arises from paradox. The literature underscores that paradoxes cannot be 'resolved' (Smith & Lewis, 2011), and argues that responding to paradox calls for the development of individual and organizational capabilities to manage paradoxical tensions (Gnyawali et al., 2016;Lewis, 2000).
Scholars have broadly clustered the organizational responses to paradoxes into defensive and active responses (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013;Lewis, 2000;Smith & Lewis, 2011). Defensive responses may include splitting, regression, repression, projection and reaction formation (see Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). In the context of interorganizational collaboration, scholars have mainly suggested structural, separation-based strategies by with organizations divide the contradictory elements within the relationship. Such defensive responses tend to provide short-term relief, reduce discomfort among the actors involved, and may allow them to temporarily overcome paradoxical tensions. Yet these types of responses are often unable to offer new ways of working within the paradox and may narrow the potential synergies that coopetition may offer (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). If the involved organizations want to benefit from each other's information position and unique capabilities, simple separation between cooperation and competition is unlikely to be enough.
In contrast, actors can draw on active responses to deal with paradoxes on a longerterm basis. These active responses may include acceptance, confrontation or synthesis (Lewis, 2000;Smith & Lewis, 2011). Whereas defensive responses may initiate vicious cycles through attempts to minimize feelings of anxiety (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), active responses can lead to first acceptance and later transcendence of paradoxes. Transcendence, which is our focus here, is one specific way scholars have explored the synthesis response to paradox (Abdallah et al., 2011;Bednarek et al., 2017;Cunha et al., 2019;Simpson & Berti, 2020). Jarzabkowski et al. (2013, p. 249) describe the practice of transcendence as 'moving towards a higher plane of understanding in which paradoxical poles are understood as complex interdependences rather than competing interests'. As Gnyawali et al. (2016, p. 8) point out, the management of paradoxical tensions through transcendence involves 'both sides to understand each other's perspectives and develop a shared perspective that transcends their differences'. Indeed, such transcendence entails the ability 'to think beyond paradoxes' (Lewis, 2000), and involves the realization of the synthesis of two poles of a contradiction that persists through 'a higher level of abstraction' (Lewis & Grimes, 1999, p. 2001. Studies on the micro-foundations of organizational paradox provide a good starting point to explore how individuals transcend paradoxes Smith, 2014;Waldman et al., 2019). For example, Miron-Spektor et al. (2018) propose a cognitive perspective and suggest that individuals who adopt a paradox mindset can 'shift their expectations from rationality and linearity to accept paradoxes as persistent and unsolvable puzzles' (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 385; see also Smith & Tushman, 2005), which may help them to transcend competing demands. Existing research further suggests that actors may accomplish such transcendence through different discursive and behavioural practices, including reframing collaborative settings through impression management (Gaim et al., 2021), using political practices that legitimize pragmatic actions (Abdallah et al., 2011) and engaging in persuasive rhetoric (Merkus et al., 2014).
Despite these existing studies, the role of emotions, both broadly in relation to responses to paradox and as an element of the process of transcendence, has so far received little attention by scholars. This oversight is surprising given that recent research highlights that paradoxical tensions tend to spread throughout the organization, leading to localized experience of emotional ambivalence and responses to paradoxes to unfold over time (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;Smith & Lewis, 2011).
An exception to this is the conceptual work that has alluded to the importance of emotional intelligence and emotional capacity in confronting paradoxical tensions (Huy, 1999;Raza-Ullah et al., 2020). Emotional intelligence is an individual level construct and involves 'the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions' (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). Emotional capability is an organizational level construct and involves the ability to understand, accept, and regulate extreme forms of emotional ambivalence Smith & Lewis, 2011). Ashforth et al. (2014) propose four strategies for managing ambivalent emotions, including avoidance, domination, compromise and holism. Holism is an active response and 'involves the complete, and typically conscious acceptance of both opposing emotions' (Ashforth et al., 2014(Ashforth et al., , p. 1465, which may allow actors to transcend of paradoxical tensions. Building on this work, Radu-Lefebvre and Randerson (2020) explored emotional ambivalence within French family businesses and identified three confrontational strategies that enable the acceptance and transcendence of paradoxical tensions, including emotional display of negative feelings, hyperbolized emotional reactions and holism.
We draw on these theoretical insights to enhance our understanding of the practice of transcendence and the processes through which it unfolds. Accordingly, we ask: How do organizational actors transcend paradoxical tensions within coopetitive settings? We provide an answer to this question through a case study of a Dutch multi-organizational, public-private partnership in which public law enforcement agencies collaborate with private financial institutions to combat serious and organized crime.

Research Setting, Design and Case Selection
We base our research on managing paradoxical tensions in the context of coopetition on a qualitative case study. The aim of our study calls for an interpretative research approach (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012), which is predicated on two principles. Firstly, to understand actors' experiences and actions, it is necessary to know how they think and feel, and what their motives are. This implies that the subjective meaning that those studied give to their experiences and actions is relevant research material. Secondly, since we cannot always directly observe the intentions and emotions of the individuals participating in the partnership, we have to interpret the words and stories we hear from them. This means that the interpretation of the researcher of this research material is also relevant.
We focus on a public-private partnership in which public law enforcement agencies and private financial institutions collaborate to combat serious and organized crimes, called the Serious Crime Taskforce (SCTF). Due to the concealed and cross-border nature of serious and organized crime, this issue is inherently complex and therefore requires cooperation among multiple governmental and private sector organizations. In this SCTF, the national police, the Public Prosecutor Service, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) are working with a number of major banks to track down and prosecute illicit financial facilitators. These financial facilitators are actors in the legitimate business environment who offer financial services to criminal networks engaged in money laundering, corruption, fraud and/or violent crime. These socalled 'brokers' usually remain out of sight of traditional criminal investigations. By monitoring transactions, it is possible to gain insight into the individuals behind the money flows.
Cooperation under the SCTF allows the police and the FIODin coordination with and under authority of the Public Prosecution Serviceto provide participating banks with the names of the brokers who are on the radar of the national police. The banks, in turn, can link these names to certain unusual transactions under the surveillance and together with the FIU. When the data on these transactions, which are now called suspicious transactions, are turned over by the FIU to the public prosecutor, they can start a case against the broker involved and the police or FIOD can launch a criminal investigation. The police and the FIOD select the information that is initially provided to the banks. This allows the reporting chain to be used carefully, effectively and in a targeted manner in the fight against serious and organized crime.
Although the Serious Crime Taskforce started in 2019 as a pilot, the partnership was structurally formalized in 2021. The SCTF was envisioned as critical for organizations to more effectively combat serious and organized crimes, yet both the public law enforcement organizations and participating banks experienced substantial tension while initiating and managing the partnership. Governmental agencies responsible for combating financial crimes and key Dutch 'systemic' banks accused of failing to comply with anti-money laundering regulations must cooperate in the partnership. Attempting to create the PPP during a period of tension due to the rule violations by the participating banks provides a unique opportunity to examine how coopetition influence the nature of the partnership and the working relations between the different partners. This environment of coopetition provides an ideal setting for examining how individuals transcend the paradoxical tensions that emerge in public-private partnerships.

Data Collection and Analysis
We collected data from three types of sourcesarchival material, in-depth interviews and observationsthus creating a rich and reliable data set. We divided our data collection and focus of attention into four distinct stages, as shown in Table 1 Case studies based on specific public-private collaboration practices and strategies following the implementation of the Wwft amendments.
Observations of four group meetings with connected public and private partners on improving the strategy of the public-private collaboration.
In-depth interviews with key actors from the public and private organizations that participate in the Serious Crime Taskforce, with a focus on their: . began with an initial analysis of legal documents on the 2018 amendment to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (Wwft). Following this initial scan, we designed six student research projects to answer the central question of how key actors within the public-private network made sense of the collaborative practices and strategies. Three of these projects addressed the perspective of banks, while the other three projects focused on the perspective of various public organizations. Based on the findings of the student research projects, we initiated an in-depth case study of the Serious Crime Taskforce. We examined formal documentation on the SCTF, including the organizational charter, evaluation reports and legal covenants. In addition, we collected observational data by attending several platform meetings. During these meetings, delegates of the participating organizations met to review the progress, effectiveness and potential challenges of the SCTF. We also conducted interviews with key delegates, including bankers and officials from the police, FIU, FIOD, the Public Prosecutor Service, the Dutch Central Bank, the Ministry of Justice and Security, and the National Banking Association. Importantly, we interviewed individuals who participated within the SCTF as well as individuals outside the taskforce who were strategically connected to it. In total, 36 interviews were conducted and fully transcribed. Table  2 provides an overview of the organizations that participated in this study and the number of interviews that were conducted.
For our qualitative data analysis, we applied the standard procedures prescribed by the Gioia-methodology (Gioia et al., 2013). This methodology helps to develop a data structure that consists of the first-order codes, second-order themes and aggregate dimensions, which shows the progression from data to theory, thereby making visible the grounds on which we are drawing our conclusions. Following the core tenets of this inductive approach, we systematically coded our data with the aim of developing a data structure that contains empirical codes and conceptual themes that are increasingly aggregated and theoretically informed by the existing literature on transcendence (e.g. Bednarek et al., 217;Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). The following briefly explains how we proceeded in constructing the data structure.
Firstly, we began by reading the collected data material in detail, which allowed us to distinguish two key themes: firstly, how the contradictory yet interrelated elements within the narratives indicate experiences of paradoxical emotions; and secondly, the various practices individuals enacted in response to these paradoxical tensions. We then began the process of 'open coding' (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). We used the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti to code for first-order empirical topics concerning actors' experiences and responses to paradoxical emotions. In the first round of open coding, we managed to generate 90 initial codes. Iterating between the empirical data, the emergent theoretical ideas, and their existing literature multiple times, we managed to merge these initial empirical codes to 30 first-order codes. Secondly, we then used 'axial coding' (Strauss & Corbin, 2008) to categorize and cluster the first-order empirical codes into second-order themes. As we moved back and forth between the relevant literature and empirical data, we consolidated our initial firstorder codes into higher-level conceptual themes. These themes represented the various practices participants engaged in talking about, responding to, and feeling about the presence and management of the paradoxical tensions within the SCTF. By combining the archival material, interview transcripts and observational data, we were able to distinguish three different foci of responses to paradox: (a) the individual actor participating in the SCTF; (b) the group of individuals within the SCTF who regularly interacted to accomplish a collective task; and (c) the SCTF as an organization with a distinct purpose, formal structure and external stakeholders.
Finally, we clustered our theoretically grounded second-order themes into overarching aggregate dimensions. These three dimensions include, firstly, the persuasive rhetoric participants used in relation to the paradoxical tensions, which we termed the rhetorical practices of transcendence: bridging, externalizing and signifying; secondly, the distinct behaviours participants engaged in as they responded to these tensions, which we termed the behavioural practices of transcendence: accommodating, localizing and legitimizing; and thirdly, the specific emotional responses that occurred within the SCTF in relation to the paradox, which we termed the emotional practices of transcendence: embracing, relating and honouring. Figure 1 represents the data structure that emerged from our analysis, highlighting the first-order categories, the second-order themes, and the aggregate dimensions.

Findings -Part 1: Practices of Transcendence
We present our findings here by discussing how individuals transcended the paradoxical tensions and the resulting emotional ambivalence they experienced within the Serious Crime Taskforce. In Part I of our findings, we highlight two distinct types of transcendence practices that emerged from the analysis of our empirical data: rhetorical practices and behavioural practices. Because these practices have been covered extensively in previous studies, our presentation of empirical data will be limited here. In Part II, we identify various emotional practices of transcendence and demonstrate that these practices are closely intertwined with rhetoric and behaviours in the process of what we have termed emotional transcendence. This interactive process is introduced and further illustrated in Part II of our findings.

Rhetorical Practices of Transcendence
Individuals attempted to transcend emotional ambivalence by offering persuasive arguments regarding the paradoxical tensions they experienced. Based on the analysis of our data, we identified three rhetorical practices of transcendence: bridging, externalizing and signifying.

Rhetorical Transcendence: Bridging
Bridging rhetoric involved individuals to both contrast and appreciate the different objectives of the participating organizations. Such bridging reinforced ties and interdependencies between the distinct objectives of the participating organizations, persuading by demonstrating how cooperation and competition related to one another in complementary, albeit complex, ways. This was often done in connection with an overarching objective that formed the 'higher plane of understanding' that allowed the interdependencies between paradoxical objectives to be highlighted. For instance, bankers often referred to the shared role among law enforcement agencies and financial firms to act as gatekeepers of the financial industry: We're all gatekeepers … [but] different parties have different roles and therefore different interests in the value chain of anti-money laundering … But I think we all have the same interest in catching criminals with a capital C in the Netherlands (D1; Banker) The 'focus' of such persuasive rhetoric was thus on bridging the complex relationship between the poles of the paradox. Specifically, bridging rhetoric constituted individuals emphasizing the complementarities of the participating organizations in a reinforcing manner.

Rhetorical Transcendence: Externalizing
Externalizing rhetoric involved the persuasive discourse of emphasizing the background of serious and organized crime. The aim of such externalizing rhetoric was to explicitly decouple the shared goal of combatting serious and financial crime from any distinct objective. Individuals engaged in such externalizing rhetoric through means of accentuating a shared problem, regardless of what particular objectives individual organizations pursued. The 'focus' was on mitigating the paradoxical tensions between the poles themselves by articulating a shared adversary. For instance, by accentuating serious and organized crimes (e.g. drug dealing, homicides, corruption) as a significant societal problem in need of attention, individuals positioned illicit brokers as common adversaries that could only be effectively identified and addressed through close collaboration between the involved organizations, as explained by this police official: We [participants in the PPP] have lost some ground on these criminals in the last 10 or 15 years, especially on the financial side … if you look at the financial side of organized crime, we are always a few steps behind the criminals. It's time we gained some ground on them (D4; Police official) Such externalizing rhetoric was thus used by individuals to convincingly situate the source of the problem outside participating organizations' themselves, thereby enabling them to mitigate the paradoxical tensions.
Rhetorical Transcendence: Signifying Individuals used signifying rhetoric by imbuing the Serious Crime Taskforce and its purpose with significance as something greater than any of the distinct objectives of the organizations involved. By accentuating the importance of the organizational context of the collaboration as an indispensable means to achieve the envisioned ends, individuals attempted to rhetorically transcend the competing objectives, as explained by one banker: The justification [for the SCTF] is that there's no other way … We don't have any others means to get grip on this kind of serious and organized crime … which is really threatening society as a whole (D9; Banker) Additionally, individuals balanced the demands and interests of their own organization with the broader question of what was best for the functioning of the SCTF, putting aside at times the interest of their parent organization and its particular objectives. Paradoxical tensions that emerged in the simultaneous pursued of cooperation and competition were rhetorically transcended by focusing on the organizational context in which the paradox was embedded (i.e. the public-private partnership) and acknowledging it as the representation of the 'higher plane of understanding'.

Behavioural Practices of Transcendence
In addition to persuasive rhetoric, individuals also engaged in substantial behaviours in order to transcend the emotional ambivalence they experienced. These behavioural practices unfolded through the specific actions taken within the SCTF in relation to the paradox. Based on the analysis of our data, we identified three behavioural practices of transcendence: accommodating, localizing and legitimizing.
Behavioural Transcendence: Accommodating Accommodating practices involved the creation of specific routines and strategies through which the individuals could align to their organizational roots, but also reaped mutual benefit from the public-private partnership. Specifically, in order to effectively collaborate in the context where participating organizations pursued cooperation and competition simultaneously, individuals had to continuously balance between the conflicting objectives and find ways to accommodate the needs of the other participating organizations, as described by this banker: We had a case where [the FIU] actually gave us feedback … That made a big difference, because we really wanted to understand the added value of our research. The police know we are doing research on criminals … we also want them to be dealt with … I think it would be great if they're continuing this or make it a standard procedure to always come back to us and tell us what they do with the information we provided (D6; Banker) Individuals acknowledged that such accommodating was required in order to achieve the shared objective, such as creating tailor-made intelligence that could then be used by banks to improve their transaction monitoring systems. Although police and financial intelligence officials were often reluctant to share individual-specific information due to legal constraints, they also understood that sharing of information, even if only at a more abstract level, was needed to accommodate to the specific needs of the participating banks. Such accommodating practices were considered important to reap the full benefits of the collaboration Behavioural Transcendence: Localizing Localizing practices involved efforts to concentrate core tasks and work processes within the working group of the SCTF. Such localization of core practices into a central working group enabled knowledge and information among actors to be pooled within a central location. Such localization was critical for establishing the boundaries within which the participating organizations could effectively and safely collaborate, as explained by a FIU official: One of the first rules that I share with everybody is that we are sort of a confidential closed group and that within this group we gain knowledge, not only about criminal activities, but also about activities within the banks or within the FIU. And if you know something about that, it cannot be shared with anybody from outside the group. So, I always try to get people at ease to share things, knowing that this information is not going anywhere (D4; FIU official) Participants within this working group understood that at certain times they needed to exercise restraint in focusing attention on specific subjects (i.e. illicit financial brokers), especially when those subjects were clients of one of the participating banks. In other words, the working group functioned as a 'safe space'. The creation of such safe spaces enabled actors to freely collaborate and operations to be shielded off from more strategic and political pressures, either emanating from their own organization or from relevant stakeholders.
Behavioural Transcendence: Legitimizing Individuals used legitimizing practices to gain support for the collaboration, both internally from the participating organizations and externally from key stakeholders on whom the SCTF depended for resources. These legitimization practices involved the concrete behaviours by which participants demonstrated the effectiveness of the SCTF, including 188 T. L. FIORITO ET AL.
the projection and dissemination of specific results that had been achieved by the taskforce. For instance, the feedback participating firms received on how their intelligence led to positive results contributed to the perception among bankers that the SCTF mattered in the fight against serious and organized crime: One of the things we appreciate is the fact that our signals are being picked up by the national police … So, when we bring cases into the taskforce, that those actually go through the full chain up to the prosecution … That has been a very compelling part of this public-private partnership … Those are the directly demonstrable effects (D1; Banker) As this example highlights, demonstrating the impact of the SCTF through the evaluation made participants perceive the collaboration as legitimate.

Findings -Part II: Interdependence through Emotions
As highlighted in the section above, individuals associated with the participating organizations engaged in persuasive rhetoric and behaviour to transcend paradoxical tensions. However, we also uncovered something in our empirical material that alluded to something beyond mere rhetoric and behaviour. Specifically, we observed an important emotional dimension of transcendence.

Emotional Practices of Transcendence
Based on the analysis of our data, we identified three emotional practices of transcendence that occurred within the SCTF in relation to the paradox: embracing, relating and honouring. At the individual level, we observe that embracing is closely related to the rhetorical and behavioural practices of bridging and accommodating. At the group level, relating is closely related to externalizing and localizing. Finally, at the organizational level, honouring is interrelated with signifying and legitimizing.
Emotional Transcendence: Embracing Embracing involved the process by which individuals came to gradually understand why both positive and negative emotions emerge within the SCTF and accept this and the corresponding emotional ambivalence. In particular, embracing was expressed by participants who accentuated their deep intrinsic connection to the purpose of the SCTF (i.e. combatting serious crimes), but also acknowledging the distinct objectives of their parent organization. Emotions such as empathy and compassion toward the delegates from other organizations proved elemental in embracing the conflicting poles of the paradox in a coherent manner, as this enabled individuals to mitigate the tensions between paradoxical poles: This collaboration evokes different kinds of emotions, from euphoria to irritation. And we were euphoric when we realized that we have something very special … My role is to highlight that part, to say, 'Look what we can achieve if we work together' … These insights get motivated to work even harder to get more insights (D4; Public Prosecutor Service official).
Importantly, we identified a strong link between this emotional process of embracing and the bridging and accommodating practices described above. Because the conflicting poles of the paradox could be encompassed within a single actor, embracing reduced the distance between the paradoxical poles. Many of the participants we spoke with referred to themselves in this regard, indicating how they identified with their competitors' views and emphasizing their own 'hybridity', as illustrated by one police official: We read about all these atrocities … but we focus on the financial side of things. And there is often less emotion in these financial practices, but we certainly know that there is a lot of woes and bad things behind them. For me personally … it is a motivation … that I know that we are trying to get information out of these investigations … to provide opportunities for law enforcement so they can catch these criminals (D3; Police official) The focus of embracing was, therefore, individuals who formed part of the organizational context and embodied 'the higher plane'. As embracing included the ability to reflect on oneself and emotionally distance oneself, even if only temporarily, from existing tensions, this assisted the bridging between the opposing poles of the paradox. One particular way participants engaged in the emotional practice of embracing was by ordering the collective objective of combatting serious and organized crime as more important than any existing tensions, including those caused by the ongoing criminal investigations into violations of anti-money laundering laws by the participating banks. This personal capacity for empathy thus enabled participants to transcend this tension, as explained by this bank official: I did the negotiations on behalf of the bank with the prosecutor's office and the FIOD … maybe it is my personality, but also these people are just doing their job … although we negotiated a lot and had different opinions, and sometimes were very unhappy with the outcome of the discussions … on a personal level I never considered them bad guys (D20; Banker) Participants also referred to others within the SCTF as personifying the conflicting poles. For example, rather than the object of 'combatting financial crime' being separately located with the public officials and 'making money' with the bankers, these labels were often intertwined within a single actor, with the term 'crimefighter' being an example of how some participants were referred to by others.

Emotional Transcendence: Relating
Relating involved the gradual establishment congenial and even emotional relationships among individuals from the participating organizations. The 'focus' of relating practices was the work group that came to transcend the contradicting poles of the paradox. Positive emotions such as enthusiasm and belonging proved essential in this process because they were accompanied by the emergence of other emotions, such as trust and respect: I'm really enthusiastic about working with all those bankers and those analysts and having our hands on that information. That's something which I really like, knowing more together. And the key word for me is also trusting each other, giving something so you know you'll get something in return (D12; Police official) We observed strong interconnections between this emotional process of relating and the externalizing and localizing practices. The rhetorical practice of externalizing involved the articulation of a shared antagonist (i.e. illicit financial brokers), which served as a common focal point for the participating organizations and thus enabling a sense of belonging among actors. By localizing the core work processes of the SCTF within a central working group right from the start, the individuals from the participating organizations 190 T. L. FIORITO ET AL.
had become attuned to one another through their ongoing collaboration, as explained by an official of the Financial Intelligence Unit: There was nothing that prescribed in detail how we should work together … So, we invented this partnership ourselves … The opportunity to operate together in one space really helped build trust and mutual understanding (D4; FIU official) This emotional process of relating occurred over time. That is, although the participating organizations often held different objectives to be important, and this could often evoke feelings of distrust and frustration, we found that this localization allowed for trust and respect among participants to gradually emerge, as illustrated by the following quote from a police official: A good working relationship depends on having respect for the other … The reason I help the banks is … [to] get good intelligence … I try to help the banking personnel because I know that if I help them, they can better describe why a particular transaction is unusual … As a result, we get better quality transaction reports, and this means we can do our job better. So, this mutual understanding of each other's role is very crucial (D14; Police official) Interestingly, although the participants had come to gradually understand and trust each other on the work group level, they also acknowledged the importance of not losing sight of the reason for the creation of the SCTF. Delegates from the banks and the prosecutor's office, for instance, acknowledged that there was still mutual distrust, particularly due to the imposed fines and the ongoing criminal investigations for the facilitation of money laundering, yet also emphasized that the external threat of serious and organized crime should not be an obstacle to the collaboration. Although some degree of interorganizational distrust remained, we noticed that participants relied on interpersonal trust within the daily operations of the working group, which eased the tensions between the opposing poles of the paradox.
Emotional Transcendence: Honouring Honouring involved the process by which participants began to gradually value the Serious Crime Taskforce as more than just a means to a particular end. Instead, the results achieved through the SCTF led the participating organizations to begin to see the partnership as an end in itself, arousing feelings of pride, accomplishment and joy. These positive emotions arose from individuals' own experience with respect to the activities and achievement of the SCTF, but also when they noticed that others valued the organizational context of the collaboration. The 'focus' of honouring practices was, therefore, the organization. The interconnections between this emotional process of honouring and the signifying and legitimizing practices are important; when delegates were informed that the intelligence they provided to law enforcement agencies resulted in demonstrable effects, such as the interception of a shipment of drugs or the crackdown of a network of illicit financial brokers, this gave rise to a sense of accomplishment and thus enhanced participants' perception of the SCTF, as suggested by this official of the Ministry of Justice and Security: At the political level, people don't understand how prosecutors and law enforcement can cooperate with the banks … at that level they don't understand why we invest so much in this public-private partnership … but within the working group we recognize the importance of bank intelligence in detecting unusual transactions and in conducting criminal investigations. What the politicians, bank executives or directors of the prosecutor's office think about this, is not really an issue for the people working at the SCTF (D7; Public official) Some participants indicated that they actively sought to persuade others of the value of the SCTF, as was explained by an official of the Financial Intelligence Unit: We are very fortunate that people from the banks are really committed to working within the SCTF because they realize that we are doing something special. And that's what I always try to emphasize … We are now part of something that is really special because we have a better understanding of criminal networks and criminal ecosystems than we did before (D2; FIU official) This sentiment was echoed by a police official, who also explained how the feeling of belonging to something triggered a range of positive emotions and helped them motivate in their daily work. The conflicting objectives were described as central to what was valued about the SCTF, and these were interwoven and constructed as complementary with respect to the larger question of what participants valued about the publicprivate partnership.

Discussion and Conclusion
In this article, we raised the question of how organizational actors transcend paradoxical tensions within interorganizational coopetitive settings. Although transcendence has been widely recognized as one of the most effective responses to paradoxical tensions (Cunha et al., 2019;Lewis, 2000;Simpson & Berti, 2020), empirical research into the underlying practices of this type of response is limited. Moreover, existing research has tended to conceptualize transcendence as either a cognitive mindset of individual actors (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018;Smith & Tushman, 2005) or as a form of persuasive talk by organizational members and leaders (Abdallah et al., 2011;Bednarek et al., 2017). In contrast, the role of emotions in actors' efforts to transcend paradoxical tensions has rarely received scholarly attention in the paradox literature.

Theoretical Contributions
Our qualitative study of a Dutch multi-organizational, public-private partnership in which law enforcement agencies collaborate with financial firms to combat serious and organized crime has allowed us to identify two key insights: firstly, the varied emotional practices that constitute transcendence; and secondly, how these emotion-infused practices unfold over time in conjunction with other types of practices. Firstly, this research complements our understanding of transcendence as a response to paradox by highlighting the specific practices that constitute it. Existing studies have generally focused on the rhetorical and behavioural practices at the heart of transcendence (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007), often overlooking the notion that such practices are strongly entwined with both individual and collective emotions (Elfenbein, 2007; which involves the process by which actors come to accept and embody the conflicting poles of the paradox in a coherent manner; Relating, which involves the process by which actors come to establish and maintain congenial relationships with other group members who represent and espouse the opposite side of the paradoxical pole; and Honouring, which involves the process by which actors come to emotionally appreciate the organizational context as more than just a means to a particular end. We show that these emotional practices differ in their foci, meaning that actors' efforts to transcend paradoxical emotions involved at different times a shift in orientation. Building on existing conceptual work that has highlighted the emotional capabilities needed to overcome paradoxical tensions (Ashforth et al., 2014;Huy, 1999;Raza-Ullah et al., 2020), we find that the emotional capability to understand and accept the emotional ambivalence arising from paradoxical tensions greatly enhances actors' ability to coherently embrace the contradictory sides of the paradox. The individual ability for empathy and compassion proved essential for coherently embracing the conflicting poles of the paradox because it enabled individuals to overcome negative feelings toward the other. At other times, actors' emotional ability to regulate emotions is needed for group members to positively relate to each other and develop respect and trust. By focusing on these emotional practices of transcendence, we answer recent calls for research to explore the role of emotions in responses to that arise in interorganizational strategic contexts paradox (Ashforth et al., 2014;Gnyawali et al., 2016;Radu-Lefebvre & Randerson, 2020).
In contrast to existing research that has conceptualized the process of transcendence as primarily a top-down activity performed by senior managers and leaders (Abdallah et al., 2011;Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), our findings illustrate that few attempts have been made to actively 'manage' these emotional practices. Because transcendence implies that the actors involved converge on a shared mission and an alignment of coordinated actions (Abdallah et al., 2011;Gnyawali et al., 2016), our findings suggest that this convergences happens when participants are exposed to shared operational work and where they are able to develop trust based on experience. This emotional transcendence was found less frequently at the strategic level. We thus show that the presence of autonomy and agency is an important precondition for transcendence.
Secondly, to further understand how these emotional practices enable transcendence, we demonstrate that the process of transcendence unfolds over time through the interplay between other practices identified in the existing literature (Bednarek et al., 2017;Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). For instance, we illustrate that at the level of the individual actor, the emotional practice of Embracing results from actor's capacity to rhetorically contrast and appreciate the different objectives of the participating organizations (i.e. Bridging practices) and to engage in behaviours to substantially meet the needs of other participating organizations (i.e. Accommodating practices). When actors are able to understand and accept the emotional ambivalence experienced by themselves and others (Ashforth et al., 2014;Smith & Lewis, 2011), they are more likely to be continuously reminded that they are in paradoxical (i.e. unusual) situation and that their goal is to find and create 'synergies' between cooperation and competition. This finding resonates with recent studies that have shown a positive relationship between a disposition for empathic concerns and work outcomes (Bechtoldt et al., 2019), in that actors with such an aptitude are more likely to deal with emotional ambivalence and develop the ability to understand and accept the opposing poles of the paradox, thereby personifying 'the higher plane in relation to the contradictory objectives' (Bednarek et al., 2017, p. 89).
We also show that rhetorical and behavioural practices are necessary for the emotional practices of transcendence to emerge. For instance, we found that at the group level, the persuasive rhetoric actors engaged in to explicitly separate a shared goal from any distinct objective (i.e. Externalizing practices) and the behavioural efforts to structurally concentrate core work practices within functional units (i.e. Localizing practice) provided the preconditions for actors to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships among group members (i.e. Relating practices) and thus alleviate the psychological discomfort caused by emotional ambivalence. The localization of core work practices within functional units allowed actors with competing interests, goals and values to become attuned to one another through their ongoing collaboration to accomplish a collective task, allowing for trust and respect among participants to gradually emerge.
By illustrating the continuous interdependencies between rhetoric, behaviour and emotions at multiple levels, our study complements existing research that has alluded to the premise that paradoxical tensions tend to permeate the entire organization , resulting in localized experience of emotional ambivalence and individuals' efforts to transcend these tensions. We show that there is a mutual reinforcement between emotional and balancing capabilities, which means that transcending the emotional ambivalence that arises from paradoxical tensions requires cultivating both capabilities simultaneously. We thus move beyond the view of transcendence as a static final outcome (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009) constructed by a limited number of practices (Abdallah et al., 2011), but rather demonstrates that the emotional practices of transcendence are closely entangled with and mutually enabling other organizational practices in transcending emotional ambivalence.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
We highlight some limitations of our study and suggest a few avenues for future research. Firstly, our findings suggest that the emotional practices that constitute transcendence emerge and endure relative autonomously, yet this does not completely preclude the occasional necessity of managerial involvement. In interorganizational relationships in particular, managers and leaders have the responsibility to create and support an environment in which these emotional practices are allowed to thrive (Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016;Waldman et al., 2019), which, in turn, can mitigate the tensions in paradoxical settings. When managers establish a supportive context 'that gives space, meaning, and importance to leveraging emotions' (Raza-Ullah, 2020, p. 7), individual actors can be encouraged to make sense of and address the contradictory emotions they experience. However, we did not explicitly consider this possibility in this study. We therefore see opportunities for scholars to build on our foundations and examine how the emotional practices, and thus the transcendence of paradoxical tensions, can be actively managed by organizational leaders.
Secondly, while our focus on collaboration within the partnership is a strong feature of our paper as it enabled us to provide an in-depth understanding of how individuals transcended paradoxical tensions and the resulting emotional ambivalence, we did not explicitly include the specific views, interests and actions of relevant stakeholders outside the focal partnership. Future research could therefore adopt an institutional lens to examine how the behaviours of individuals participating in public-private partnerships are enabled or constrained by the interests, values and strategic orientation of their parent organization. By extension, although government agencies often have a regulatory or punitive capacity toward private sector organizations, they can only obtain legitimacy for social issues from said actors through compromises and negotiations that, sometimes, 'facilitate the circumvention of its own formal, rational rules in a way that allows domination to be both rational and political at the same time' (Johnston & Clegg, 2012, p. 283). In this light, we encourage future research to explore the various power dynamics that are play public-private partnerships, and how these struggles may shape the performance of such strategic alliances.

Conclusion
Our paper offers insight into transcendence as a way to respond to paradoxical tensions. To this end, we examined how organizational actors transcend paradoxical emotions that arise when simultaneously pursuing cooperation and competition. Our study suggests that transcending emotional ambivalence involves not only the enactment of different rhetorical and behavioural practices, but also various emotional practices, which we have termed emotional transcendence. These emotional practices vary in their focus and are used alternately and interchangeably with rhetoric and behaviour. By exploring the paradoxical emotions in a unique coopetitive setting, we contribute to the literature on emotions and paradox and open up interesting avenues for future research. experience as researcher and consultant. A selection of recent journal contributions: Public Administration, Journal of Organization Change Management, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business and Building Research and Information.
I. Drori is a Professor Emeritus at the Department of Organization Sciences of the VU University Amsterdam. His research is based on organizational ethnography, focusing on trust, identity, work culture, rhetoric and authenticity, and also on start-ups and transnational entrepreneurship, emergence of innovation ecosystems, and microfinance. Issy published books and numerous articles in journals, such as Academy of Management Journal, American Sociological Review, Organization Science, Organization Studies, and Journal of Business Venturing.