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