A comparative study of a single competitive strategy and a combination approach for enterprise performance

• Autorzy: Mongkol Kulachet

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17512/pjms.2021.23.2.19

Warianty tytułu

PL

Studium porównawcze jednej strategii konkurencji i połączonego podejścia do wyników przedsiębiorstwa

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Choosing the right competitive strategy helps a firm to compete with it rivals and become a leader in the market. Two different generic types of competitive strategies consisting of low-cost provider and differentiation have been wildly accepted by firms in every industry, but they are mutually exclusive and are not implemented at the same time. Nevertheless, contemporary studies agree that those two strategies can be combined, and firm should implement mutual strategies. Therefore, this research aims to examine the compatibility of a low-cost provider strategy and a differentiation strategy, and their impacts on organizational performance, considering various environmental factors. Methodologically, a quantitative approach was deployed using multiple regressions to analyze the responses from 42 CEOs in Thai public limited companies in eight different industries, which were classified in SET 100 index. The findings showed that combined strategies produced more significant impacts on the companies’ performance than a single strategy. Thus, firms may combine both low cost and differentiation strategies and implement them simultaneously. In addition, control variables (rapid change and uncertainty) and strategy variables appear to have significant impacts on companies’ performance. Therefore, firms should not ignore them to prevent negative consequences.

PL

Wybranie odpowiedniej strategii konkurencyjnej pomaga firmie konkurować z rywalami i stać się liderem na rynku. Dwa różne rodzaje strategii konkurencyjnych składających się z taniego dostawcy i zróżnicowania zostały szeroko zaakceptowane przez firmy w każdej branży, ale wzajemnie się wykluczają i nie są wdrażane w tym samym czasie. Niemniej współczesne badania są zgodne, że te dwie strategie można łączyć, a firma powinna wdrażać strategie wzajemne. Dlatego niniejsze badanie ma na celu zbadanie zgodności strategii tanich dostawców ze strategią zróżnicowania oraz ich wpływu na wydajność organizacji, biorąc pod uwagę różne czynniki środowiskowe. Metodologicznie zastosowano podejście ilościowe przy użyciu regresji wielokrotnych do analizy odpowiedzi 42 dyrektorów generalnych tajlandzkich spółek akcyjnych w ośmiu różnych branżach, które zostały sklasyfikowane w indeksie SET 100. Wyniki pokazały, że połączone strategie wywarły większy wpływ na wyniki firm niż pojedyncza strategia. W ten sposób firmy mogą łączyć zarówno strategie niskokosztowe, jak i strategie różnicowania i wdrażać je jednocześnie. Ponadto zmienne kontrolne (szybka zmiana i niepewność) oraz zmienne strategiczne wydają się mieć znaczący wpływ na wyniki firm. Dlatego firmy nie powinny ich ignorować, aby zapobiec negatywnym konsekwencjom.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

competitive strategy; low-cost; differentiation; combined strategies; organizational performance

PL

strategia konkurencyjna; niski koszt; zróżnicowanie; strategie łączone; wydajność organizacji

• Wydawca: Czestochowa University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Management Studies
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 23, No. 2
• Strony: 321--334
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 35 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Mongkol Kulachet

• Srinakharinwirot University, Faculty of Business Administration for Society

Bibliografia

• 1.Atkociuniene, O. Z., Miroshnychenko O., (2019). Towards sustainable development: The role of R&D spillovers in innovation development. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 9(2), 409-419.
• 2.Bayo-Moriones, A., Galdon-Sanchez, J. E. and Martinez-de-Morentin, S., (2021). Business strategy, performance appraisal and organizational result. Personnel Review, 50(2), 515-534.
• 3.Beal, R. M., Yasai-Ardekani, M., (2000). Performance implications of aligning CEO functional experiences with competitive strategies. Journal of Management, 26, 733-762.
• 4.Bel, R., (2017). A property rights theory of competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1678-1703.
• 5.Camble, D., Edgar, D. & Stonehouse, G., (2011). Business strategy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• 6.Coad, A., Holm, R. J., Krafft, J. and Quatraro, F., (2018). Firm age and performance. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(1), 1-11.
• 7.Gabrielsson, M., Sepp l , T. and Gabrielsson, P., (2016). Realizing a hybrid competitive strategy and achieving superior financial performance while internationalizing in the high-technology market. Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 141-153.
• 8.Hall, W. K., (1980). Survival strategies in a hostile environment. Harvard Business Review, September/October, 75-85.
• 9.Hamid, N., (2018). Factor analysis for balanced scorecard as measuring competitive advantage of infrastructure assets of owned state ports in Indonesia: Pelindo IV, Makassar, Indonesia. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(2), 386-401.
• 10.Hill, C. W. L., (1988). Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 13, 401-412.
• 11.Ivanisevic, A., Losonc, A., Radisic, M., Njegovan, M. and Pavlovic, A., (2020). Development of planning model for improving financial performance. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 8(1), 67-81.
• 12.Kim, E., Nam, D. and Stimpert, J. L., (2004). The applicability of Porter’s generic strategies in the digital age: assumptions, conjectures, and suggestions. Journal of Management, 30(5), 569-589.
• 13.Kim, L., Lim, Y., (1988). Environment, generic strategies, and performance in a rapidly developing country: a taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 802-827.
• 14.Krejcie, R. V., Morgan, D. W., (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30, 607-610.
• 15.Liao, Z., Greenfield, P. F., (1997). The impact of generic competitive strategies on corporate R&D: an empirical study in Japan. International Journal of Technology Management,13, 542-553.
• 16.Manev, I. M., Manolova, T. S., Harkins, J. A. and Gyoshev, B. S., (2015). Are pure or hybrid strategies right for new ventures in transition economies?. International Small Business Journal, 33(8), 951-973.
• 17.Miller, D., (1992). Generic strategies: classification, combination and context. Advances in Strategic Management, 8, 391-408.
• 18.Miller, D., Friesen, P. H., (1986). Porter’s generic strategies and performance: an empirical examination with American data. Part II: Performance implications. Organization Studies, 7, 255-261.
• 19.Ouakouak, M. L., Ammar, O., (2015). How does strategic flexibility pay off in terms of financial performance?. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 16(4), 442-456.
• 20.Parnell, J. A., Long, Z. and Lester, D., (2015). Competitive strategy, capabilities and uncertainty in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in China and the United States. Management Decision, 53(2), 402-431.
• 21.Pattanasing, K., Aujirapongpan, S., Ritkaew, S., Chanthawong, A. and Deelers, S., (2021).
• 22.The impact of dynamic capabilities and dynamic performance measurement on competitive performance: evidence from Thai hotel entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(3), 10-28.
• 23.Pertusa-Ortega, M. E., Molina-Azorin, F. J. and Claver-Cortes, E., (2009). Competitive strategies and firm performance: A comparative analysis of pure, hybrid and ‘stuck-in-the-middle’ strategies in Spanish firms. British Journal of Management, 20(4), 508-523.
• 24.Porter, M., (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.
• 25.Porter, M., (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press.
• 26.Pundziene, A., Nikou, S. and Bouwman, H., (2021). The nexus between dynamic capabilities and competitive firm performance: the mediating role of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management,
• 27.Rothaermel, T. F., (2018). Strategic Management. Irwin: McGraw-Hill.
• 28.Salavou, H., (2013). Hybrid strategies in Greece: a pleasant surprise. European Business Review, 25(3), 301-314.
• 29.Salavou, H. E., (2015). Competitive strategies and their shift to the future. European Business Review, 27(1), 80-99.
• 30.Spanos, Y. E., Zaralis, G. and Lioukas, S., (2004). Strategy and industry effects on profitability: evidence from Greece. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 139-165.
• 31.Spanos, Y. E., Lioukas, S., (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 907-934.
• 32.St. John, H. C., Harrison, S. J., (2014). Strategic Management Fundamentals. South- Western: Cengage Learning.
• 33.Thompson, A. A., Peteraf, A. M., Gamble, E. J. & Strickland, J. A., (2019). Crafting and executing strategy. Irwin: McGraw-Hill.
• 34.Wheelen, L. T., Hunger D. J., (2018). Strategic Management and Business Policy. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
• 35.White, J. C., Conant, J. S. and Echambadi, R., (2003). Marketing strategy development styles, implementation capability, and firm performance: investigating the curvilinear impact of multiple strategy-making styles. Marketing Letters, 14(2), 111-124.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).