혼합 전략(Hybrid Strategy)은 효과적인가? = Is Hybrid Competitive Strategy Working?

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to examine the performance implication of the hybrid competitive strategy which combines differentiation and cost leadership elements in comparison to Porter’s traditional pure competitive strategies(a differentiation strategy and a low cost strategy), especially under highly uncertain environment.
Porter(1985) argued that there are two generic types of competitive advantage a firm can develop in order to achieve better performance, namely, low cost and differentiation. These two types of competitive advantage which a firm seeks to achieve lead two generic competitive strategies; cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy. Porter argued against the simultaneous pursuit of cost leadership and differentiation strategies since he believed that each of them requires a different set of resources and organizational arrangements.
However, other researchers suggest that some firms could successfully pursue hybrid competitive strategies which combine both low cost and differentiation elements(Hall, 1980; Hambrick, 1983; Dess & Davis, 1984; White, 1986; Kim & Lim, 1988; Dawes & Sharp, 1996; Gopalakrishna & Subramanian, 2001; Spanos, Zaralis & Lioukas, 2004). Some researchers explain that achieving a strong position in one of two strategies may actually improve the position in the other strategy(Miller & Friesen, 1986; Hill, 1988; Miller, 1992). Another researchers argue that certain recently developed management practice like quality management and information and communication technology may help firms to achieve strong positions in both strategies(Belohlav, 1993; Wright et al., 1994; Grant, 2002; Bayo-Moriones & Lera-Lopez, 2007).
Moreover, some researchers suggest that hybrid competitive strategy is not only viable but also like to be related with better performance than Porter’s traditional pure strategies. This is because pursuing pure strategies may leave gaps in product offerings and customer needs due to strategic specialization. Researchers suggest that the competitive advantage of firms with pure strategy may be more vulnerable to competitors’ imitation than that of firms with hybrid strategy. Hybrid strategy may also be more effective for adapting to changing environment than pure strategy by having both types of competitive advantages(Pertusa-Ortega et. al., 2009; Beal & Yasai-Ardekani, 2000; Miller, 1992; Booth & Philip, 1998). Based on these arguments, we suggest the following Hypothesis 1.


Hypothesis 1: Firms with hybrid strategies will have better performance than firms with other competitive strategies.


Strategic contingency theory argues that relationships between strategy and firm performance could be a function of environmental characteristics(Hambrick, 1983; Hrebiniak & Joyce, 1985; Miller, 1988; 1991). Previous research suggest that hybrid strategies are more effective under uncertain environment because pure strategy which produces only one type of competitive advantage may not be enough for a firm to adapt and evolve to a changing environment if it is highly uncertain(Kim, Nam & Stimpert, 2004; Pertusa-Ortega, et. al., 2009). Thus we suggest the following Hypothesis 2.


Hypothesis 2: The performance difference between firms with hybrid strategy and firms with other strategies will be greater under uncertain environment.


In order to test these hypotheses empirical analyses were carried out over a multi-sectorial sample of 962 Korean firms. The sample of this study which is composed of 962 firms from 28 industrial sectors is significantly larger and diversified in comparison to previous empirical studies, thus improves the generalizability of results. Findings of empirical analyses are as follows.
First, supporting Hypothesis 1, firms with hybrid strategy indeed have significantly higher performance than firms with pure strategies or without a clear strategy(‘stuck in the middle’). Second, supporting Hypothesis 2, relatively superior perfo...

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 국내 기업의 경쟁전략 유형을 Porter의 구분에 따른 원가우위 전략, 차별화 전략, 어중간한 상태(‘stuck in the middle’)와 새로운 유형인 혼합 전략(hybrid strategy)으로 구분하고 이들이 기업성과에 미치는 영향을 실증분석 하였다. 또한 경쟁전략과 기업성과 간의 관계에 있어서 환경의 불확실성이 갖는 조절효과를 분석하였다. 특히 원가우위와 차별화 우위를 동시에 갖춘 혼합 전략의 기업성과에 주목하였다. 실증분석은 국내 28개 산업의 962개 기업으로 구성된 대규모 표본을 이용하여 수행되었다. 실증분석 결과, 경쟁전략의 유형 중 혼합 전략은 다른 경쟁전략 유형보다 높은 성과를 보였다. 한편, 환경의 불확실성은 경쟁전략 유형 간 기업성과의 차이를 조절하는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 환경의 불확실성이 높을 때 혼합 전략과 다른 경쟁전략 유형 간 기업성과의 차이는 더 뚜렷해지는 것으로 확인되었다. 이와 같은 실증연구 결과는 환경의 불확실성이 커질수록 기업은 서로 모순되어 보이는 원가우위와 차별화 우위를 동시에 추구하는 혼합 전략을 통해 이에 대응할 수 있다는 시사점을 제공하고 있다. 본 연구에서 다루어진 혼합 전략은 최근 대두되고 있는 상호 모순적으로 보이는 두 가지 속성을 동시에 높은 수준으로 추구하는 조직 양면성(ambidexeterity) 논의의 일환으로 연결지을 수 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 조직양면성 관점의 논의를 확대하여 원가우위 전략과 차별화 전략은 모순적 속성을 가지고 있지만 동시추구가 가능하며, 특히 환경의 불확실성이 매우 높은 경우에 우월한 성과를 위해서는 혼합 전략의 추구가 필수불가결할 수도 있다는 점을 시사하고 있다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 박종경, "환경의 불확실성, 경쟁전략이 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 : 혼합 전략을 중심으로" 중앙대학교 대학원 2013
• 2 정동섭, "환경의 불확실성, 경쟁전략과 기업성과의 관계" 한국인사관리학회 21 (21): 239-263, 1997
• 3 추승엽, "환경과 다차원적 조직 양면성: 성과에 대한 함의" 한국전략경영학회 17 (17): 79-108, 2014
• 4 정수열, "환경, 전략, 조직구조간의 적합성이 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구" 한국전략경영학회 11 (11): 43-67, 2008
• 5 이석인, "중소기업의 환경과 전략의 적합이 성과에 미치는 영향" 한국기업경영학회 12 (12): 225-238, 2005
• 6 조동성, "연구논문: 본원적 전략의 동태적 결합" 한국경영학회 24 (24): 33-64, 1995
• 7 李章宇, "산업환경, 전략 및 조직구조 간의 관계 : 컴퓨터 산업에 대한 종단적 연구" 韓國科學技術院 大學院 1988
• 8 오종석, "본원적 경쟁전략의 양립성에관한 연구" 대한경영학회 10 : 189-210, 1994
• 9 추승엽, "경영환경, 경쟁전략 및 기업 내부역량 간의 적합성이 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구" 한국전략경영학회 12 (12): 101-126, 2009
• 10 Porter, M. E., "What is Strategy?" 74 (74): 61-78, 1996
• 11 Campbell-Hunt, C., "What have We Learned about Generic Competitive Strategy? A Meta-analysis" 21 (21): 127-154, 2000
• 12 Duncan, R. B., "The management of organization" North-Holland 167-188, 1976
• 13 Mintzberg, H., "The Structuring of Organizational structure" Prentice-Hall 1979
• 14 Miller, D., "The Structural and Environmental Correlates of Business Strategy" 8 : 55-76, 1987
• 15 Burns, T., "The Management of Innovation" Tavistock 1961
• 16 Liao, Z., "The Impact of Generic Competitive Strategies on Corporate R&D : An Empirical Study in Japan" 13 : 542-553, 1997
• 17 Miller, D., "The Generic Strategy Trap" 13 : 37-41, 1992
• 18 Moon, H. C., "The Dynamics of Porter’s three Generics in International Business Strategy" 4 : 51-64, 1993
• 19 Kroll, M., "The Contributions of Product Quality to Competitive Advantage : Impacts of Systematic Variance and Unexpected Variance in Returns" 20 (20): 375-384, 1999
• 20 Venkatraman, N., "The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research : Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence" 14 (14): 423-444, 1989
• 21 Van de Ven, A., "The Concept of Fit in Contingency Theory" 7 : 333-365, 1985
• 22 Kim, E., "The Applicability of Porter’s Generic Strategies in the Digital Age : Assumptions, Conjectures, and Suggestions" 30 : 569-589, 2004
• 23 Gibson, C. B., "The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity" 47 : 209-226, 2004
• 24 Booth, M. E., "Technology, Competencies, and Competitiveness : the Case for Reconfigurable and Flexible Strategies" 41 : 29-40, 1998
• 25 Hambrick, D. C., "Taxonomic Approaches to Studying Strategy : Some Conceptual &Methodical Approach" 10 (10): 27-41, 1984
• 26 Hall, W. K., "Survival Strategies in a Hostile Environment" 58 (58): 75-85, 1980
• 27 Snow, C. C., "Strategy, Distinctive Competence and Organizational Performance" 25 : 317-336, 1980
• 28 Govindarajan, V., "Strategy, Control Systems, and Resource Sharing : Effect on Business-unit Performance" 33 (33): 259-285, 1990
• 29 Spanos, Y. E., "Strategy and Industry Effects on Profitability : Evidence from Greece" 25 : 139-165, 2004
• 30 Salavou, H., "Strategy Types of Service Firms : Evidence from Greece" 48 (48): 1033-1047, 2010
• 31 Miller, D., "Strategy Making and Ⅱ the Environment : the Third Link" 4 : 221-235, 1983
• 32 Miller. D., "Strategy Making and Structure:Analysis and Implications to Performance" 30 : 7-32, 1987
• 33 Hofer, C., "Strategy Formulation: Analysis Concepts" West Publi- shing Co 1978
• 34 Wright, P., "Strategic Profiles and Performance : An Empirical Test of Select Key Propositions" 19 : 245-254, 1991
• 35 Wright, P., "Strategic Orientation, Competitive Advantage and Business Performance" 33 : 143-151, 1995
• 36 Wright, P., "Strategic Management, Text and Cases" Prentice Hall 1994
• 37 Miller, D., "State in the Saddle : CEO Tenure and Match between Organization and Environment" 37 : 34-52, 1991
• 38 Katila, R., "Something Old, Something New : A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction" 45 (45): 1183-1194, 2002
• 39 Hambrick, D. C., "Some Test of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of Miles and Snow’s Strategic Types" 26 : 5-26, 1983
• 40 Podsakoff, P. M., "Selfreports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects" 12 (12): 531-544, 1986
• 41 Gopalakrishna, P., "Revisiting the Pure Versus Hybrid Dilemma : Porter’s Generic Strategies in a Developing Economy" 15 : 61-79, 2001
• 42 Miller, D., "Relating Porter’s Business Strategies to Environment and Structure Analysis and Performance Implication" 13 (13): 280-308, 1988
• 43 Deming, W., "Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position" MIT Center for Advanced Engineering 1982
• 44 Phillips, L. W., "Product Quality, Cost Position and Business Performance : A Test of Some Key Hypotheses" 47 (47): 26-43, 1983
• 45 Reitsperger, W. D., "Product Quality and Cost Leadership: Compatible Strategies?" (33) : 7-21, 1993
• 46 Miller, D., "Porter’s Generic Strategy and Performance" 7 : 255-263, 1986
• 47 Dess, G. G., "Porter’s Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organization Performance" 27 : 467-488, 1984
• 48 Beal, R. M., "Performance Implications of Aligning CEO Functional Experiences with Competitive Strategies" 26 : 733-762, 2000
• 49 Thompson, J., "Organizations in Action" McGraw-Hill 1967
• 50 Child, J., "Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance : The Role of Strategic Choice" 6 : 2-22, 1972
• 51 Miles, R. E., "Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process" McGraw-Hill Book Co 1978
• 52 Hrebiniak, L. G., "Organizational Adaption : Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism" 30 : 336-349, 1985
• 53 Harman, H. H., "Modern Factor Analysis" University of Chicago Press 1967
• 54 Govindarajan, V., "Linking Control Systems to Business Unit Strategy : Impact on Performance" 10 (10): 51-66, 1985
• 55 Zaltman, G., "Innovations and Organizations" Wiley 1973
• 56 Dawes, J., "Independent Empirical Support for Porter’s Generic Marketing Strategies? A Re-analysis Using Correspondence Analysis" 1 : 36-53, 1996
• 57 Baroto, M. B., "Hybrid Strategy : A New Strategy for Competitive Advantage" 7 (7): 120-133, 2012
• 58 Proff, H., "Hybrid Strategies as a Strategic Challenge: The Case of the German Automotive Industry" 28 (28): 541-553, 2000
• 59 Porter, M. E, "Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate" 73 : 120-134, 1995
• 60 Ohmae, K., "Getting Back to Strategy" 149-156, 1988
• 61 White, R. E., "Generic Business Strategies, Organizational Context and Performance : An Empirical Investigation" 7 (7): 217-231, 1986
• 62 Venkatraman, N., "Exploring the Concept of Fit in Strategic Management" 9 (9): 513-525, 1989
• 63 He, Z. L., "Exploration vs. Exploitation : An Empirical Test of The Ambidexterity Hypothesis" 15 : 481-494, 2004
• 64 March, J. G., "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning" 1 (1): 71-87, 1991
• 65 Miles, M., "Environmental Marketing : A Source of Reputational, Competitive, and Financial Advantage" 23 : 299-311, 2000
• 66 Kim, L., "Environment Generic Strategies and Performance in a Rapidly Developing Country" 31 (31): 802-827, 1988
• 67 Dess, G. G., "Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments" 29 (29): 52-73, 1984
• 68 Hill, C. W. L., "Differentiation Versus Low Cost or Differentiation and Low Cost: A Contingency Framework" 13 (13): 401-412, 1988
• 69 Belohlav, J., "Developing the Quality Organization" 119-122, 1993
• 70 Jones, G. R., "Costs, Revenue, and Business-level Strategy" 13 (13): 202-213, 1988
• 71 Grant, R., "Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Concepts, Techniques, Applications" Blackwell 2002
• 72 Fry, L. W., "Congruence, Contingency, and Theory Building" 12 (12): 117-132, 1987
• 73 Porter, M. E., "Competitive Strategy: Technique for Analyzing Industries and Competitors" Free Press 1980
• 74 Pertusa-Ortega, E., "Competitive Strategies and Firm Performance : A Comparative Analysis of Pure, Hybrid and ‘Stuckin-the-middle’ Strategies in Spanish Firms" 20 : 508-523, 2009
• 75 Porter, M. E., "Competitive Advantage, Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance" Free Press 1985
• 76 Schmidheiny, S., "Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment" MIT Press 1992
• 77 Gupta, A. K., "Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics at Strategy Implementation" 27 : 25-41, 1984
• 78 Wright, P., "A Refinement of Porter’s Strategies" 8 (8): 93-101, 1987
• 79 Bayo-Moriones, A., "A Firm-level Analysis of Determinants of ICT Adoption in Spain" 27 : 352-366, 2007
• 80 Murray, A., "A Contingency View of Porter’s Generic Strategies" 13 : 390-400, 1988