STRATEGIC GROUPS AND RIVALROUS FIRM BEHAVIOR: TOWARDS A RECONCILIATION

This research examines the question of whether rivalry is greater between or within strategic groups by utilizing more direct, dynamic and fine-grained measures of rivalry. Examining the competitive actions of firms in different strategic groups to determine if competitive responses were more likely to occur from firms in the same strategic group, or from firms in different strategic groups, the research found that competitive responses cannot be predicted by strategic group membership. Importantly, however, strategic group membership is a predictor of the manner by which firms compete with one another, or the frequency with which they undertake competitive actions, cut prices, instigate warfare and imitate rivals. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hybrid strategic groups

The notion of strategic groups has recently emerged as a critical perspective for uncovering firms' strategic postures/recipes and competitive market structures. Firms within strategic groups generally adopt similar strategic recipes and compete more intensely than firms across strategic groups. Building on recent research, the authors develop the concept of hybrid strategic groups, which blend the strategic recipes of more than one group, in contrast to existing conceptualizations of strategic groups, where either firms tightly follow the recipes of a strategic group (i.e., core firms) or firms loosely follow the recipes of a strategic group (i.e., secondary firms). Thus, competition among firms depends not only on the strategic group but also on the overlap of that strategic group with other strategic groups. The authors devise a combinatorial optimization-based classification procedure utilizing a bilinear model that accommodates multiple variable batteries that can estimate hybrid strategic groups. The proposed methodology is illustrated by using archival data on public banks. For this illustration, the hybrid strategic group solution outperforms ordinary cluster analyses and offers critical insights into the nature of competition among firms. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Examining the effect of complexity in strategic group knowledge structures on firm performance

A developing stream of research in the strategy field explores the competitive structure of industries from the perspective of industry participants. This work has demonstrated that managers develop strategic group knowledge structures in order to make sense of their competitive environment. This study extends this line of research by examining the complexity evident in the strategic group knowledge structures developed by firms' top management teams and assessing the relationship between complexity in these knowledge structures and subsequent firm performance. Specifically, we examine the complexity of top managers' knowledge structures regarding their competition using a sample of 76 top management teams from banks in three U.S. cities. Using hierarchical regression, we find a significant relationship between the complexity of cognitive strategic groups and subsequent firm performance. These results suggest that the structure of the cognitive templates that top managers use to understand their environment and the actions of their competitor influence the degree of strategic success of their firm. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic groups,competitive groups and performance within the U.K. pharmaceutical industry: Improving our understanding of the competitive process

Strategic group research originated in the 1970s and a number of notable studies centered on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Results were, however, conflicting. This paper explores the nature of strategic groups in the U.K. pharmaceutical industry. The study confirms the presence of between six and eight strategic groups across the period studied, 1998–2002. The study also demonstrates a statistically significant relationship between these strategic groups and performance using three performance measures. The paper then compares strategic groups with competitive groups and concludes that the distinction is important and may explain the contradictory findings in earlier strategic group research. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Managerial perceptions of global pioneering advantage: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence in the U.S. and Korea

Managers form mental models of their business environment, and make strategic decisions based on these perceptions of reality. We study managerial perceptions of the competitive advantage gained by a pioneering firm. We expect that managers will make pioneering entry decisions based on their perceptions of pioneering advantages. Due to cross-national cultural and business environment differences, managers from different countries will employ different mental models and thus perceive the relative advantage of pioneering differently.Drawing from the literature on cultural influence on decision-making, we build a theoretical framework of perceived pioneering advantage in different cultural environments. From this framework, and from cultural differences that exist between the United States and South Korea, we derive hypotheses regarding expected cross-cultural perceptual differences. We test these hypotheses using samples of senior product managers from both countries. We find that some, but not all, of the principles of pioneering advantage empirically verified in North America are generalizable to the culturally-different South Korean business environment.     

Choice and determinism: A test of Hrebiniak and Joyce's framework on strategy-environment fit

This paper describes the first empirical test of Hrebiniak and Joyce'S innovative model of business-environment relations. Virtually all the literature prior to their Administrative Science Quarterly article (1985) assumes a zero-sum relationship between managerial choice and environmental determinism. In the Hrebiniak and Joyce framework the two are orthogonal, and environments where management and environment are both weak or both powerful are possible. We first look for evidence of Hrebiniak and Joyce'S environment typology in 52 manufacturing industries previously specified by Dess and Beard (1984). Next, we test their propositions of strategy-environment fit by classifying 146 firms into strategic groups, then evaluating each group in each environment. Our tests provide partial support for Hrebiniak and Joyce'S environment typology and for their contingent strategies. However, frequencies of firm location among the environments were highly skewed. These results suggest that strategy-environment fit may not be as critical as market-selection in the competitive success of firms.     

Knowledge structures of prospectors,analyzers, and defenders: content,structure, stability,and performance

The managerial cognition perspective argues that managers operating in complex, dynamic environments develop knowledge structures that help them focus their attention, interpretation, and actions. We explore the content and structure of top managers' strategic knowledge structures by measuring differences in the level of attention they give in annual reports to strategic issues and themes that Miles and Snow used to describe their main strategic types. Twenty-one themes that form seven main factors describing managers' strategic cognition are identified, and these demonstrate reasonable fit with the Miles and Snow model. We show that expert raters can recognize these factors when they read annual reports that contain them. Cluster analysis is then used to identify groups of firms that share similar profiles on these strategic dimensions which are interpreted as examples of cognitive strategic groups. These groups show alignment with Miles and Snow's strategic types, are relatively stable over time, and differ in financial performance. The sample comprises 1,038 listed Australian firms between the years 1992 and 2003. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who competes with whom? A demand‐based perspective for identifying and representing asymmetric competition

A host of strategic management and marketing issues, including competitive analysis and strategic decision making, hinges on accurately identifying and representing competitive market structures. It is readily acknowledged that competitive market structures are typically asymmetric; namely, one firm may actively compete with another in a given market but not vice versa. However, empirical efforts to assess these competitive asymmetries have been lacking in the strategy literature. We propose a new spatial methodology to identify and represent asymmetric competitive market structures. Specifically, we devise a new stochastic multidimensional scaling procedure that is calibrated from actual consumer consideration/choice sets to estimate and uncover competitive asymmetries. The proposed methodology can be effectively employed in the analysis of appropriate data from either demand‐ or supply‐side approaches to assess competitive market structure. We illustrate our proposed methodology with survey data collected from two different commercial applications: one from the U.S. luxury automobile market and the other from the U.S. portable telephone market. We contrast the findings of the proposed methodology against traditional symmetric approaches for identifying and representing competitive market structures, and discuss the respective strategic insights. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do strategic groups differ in reputation?

While most strategic group research has focused on performance implications, we consider the relationship between strategic group membership and reputation. Using strategic group identity and domain consensus concepts, we propose strategic groups have different reputations. We find significant differences exist in reputation across three identified strategic groups of U.S. property/casualty insurers, supporting our contention that reputation is a multilevel concept. Post hoc analyses suggest strategic groups with higher reputation also have higher performance on some critical measures, indicating reputation may be a mobility barrier beneficial to members of certain groups. Practitioner implications include challenges of within‐group differentiation in firm reputation. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Configuring and managing strategic supplier portfolios

Acknowledging that not all supplier relationships can nor should be close partnerships, this article explores the development of strategic supplier portfolios. The strategic portfolio perspective considers risks, trade-offs, and interdependencies between the firm's array of supplier relationships. Based on over 50 interviews with managers and archival data from 12 multinational companies, a strategic supplier portfolio management framework is developed. The authors explore processes that firms use to plan, implement, and monitor strategic supplier portfolios. This research indicates that by assembling superior supplier bases, developing suppliers and integrating them into product development and manufacturing, strategic supplier portfolios contribute to competitive advantage.     

Competitive positioning within and across a strategic group structure: the performance of core,secondary, and solitary firms

Drawing from economic and cognitive theories, researchers have argued that firms within an industry tend to cluster together, following similar strategies. Their positioning in strategic groups, in turn, is argued to influence firm actions and firm performance. We extend this research to examine performance implications of competitive positioning not just among but also within groups. We find that performance differences within groups are significantly larger than across groups, suggesting that some firms within groups develop better resource or competitive positions. We also find that secondary firms within a group outperform both core firms within the group and solitary firms, the latter being those not belonging to any multifirm strategic group. This suggests that secondary firms may be able to effectively balance the benefits of strategic distinctiveness with institutional pressures for similarity. We conclude that the primary implication of strategic groups does not relate to the ability of firms to create stable, advantageous market segments through collusion. Instead, strategic groups represent a range of viable strategic positions firms may stake out and use as reference points. Moreover, our results concerning secondary firms indicate that firm positioning within a group structure can have performance implications. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Firm,strategic group,and industry influences on performance

A long‐standing debate has focused on the extent to which different levels of analysis shape firm performance. The strategic group level has been largely excluded from this inquiry, despite evidence that group membership matters. In this study, we use hierarchical linear modeling to simultaneously estimate firm‐, strategic group‐, and industry‐level influences on short‐term and long‐term measures of performance. We assess the three levels' explanatory power using a sample of 1,165 firms in 12 industries with data from a 7‐year period. To enhance comparability to previous research, we also estimate the effects using the variance components and ANOVA methods relied on in past studies. To assess the robustness of strategic group effects, we examine both deductively and inductively defined groups. We found that all three levels are significantly associated with performance. The firm effect is the strongest, while the strategic group effect rivals and for some measures outweighs the industry effect. We also found that the levels have varying effects in relation to different performance measures, suggesting more complex relationships than depicted in previous studies. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic groups as reference groups: Theory,modeling and empirical examination of industry and competitive strategy

Previous studies on strategic groups have mainly focused on their static characteristics in order to test the theory of strategic groups and intraindustry performance differences (Porter, 1979; Cool and Schendel, 1988; Fiegenbaum and Thomas, 1990). In contrast, this study takes a longitudinal, dynamic perspective and describes the forces driving strategic group membership and structural evolution. It proposes that a strategic group acts as a reference point for group members in formulating competitive strategy. A partial adjustment model of strategic mobility is then developed which incorporates the idea of a strategic group as a reference group. It models strategic change in an industry both within and across strategic groups. The model is tested in the context of an in-depth industry analysis of the more significant firms in the insurance industry over the 1970-84 time period. The results suggest that strategic groups act as reference points for firm strategies and that predictions of future firm strategies and industry/group structures may also be successfully derived.     

Competitive forces and strategic choice decisions: an experimental investigation in the United States and Japan

Managers operate in a complex, uncertain environment and tend to form simplified models in order to cope with this environment and make competitive strategic decisions (i.e., cost‐leadership, differentiation, or focus). In this study, we use an experimental design to examine the strategic choice decision‐making process in firms located in the United States and Japan. We develop several main‐effect propositions regarding managerial selection of competitive strategies, depending on the competitive forces (buyer power, threat of substitutes, threat of new firm entry, and high intensity of rivalry) they are facing. We propose a main effect due to country of origin: Japanese managers prefer a cost‐leadership strategy more than American managers do. We also propose several interaction effects regarding cross‐national differences in strategy selection between Japanese and U.S. managers. To test our propositions, we collected experimental data from 316 U.S. executives and 459 Japanese executives. We assessed relative impacts of the competitive forces on strategic decision‐making using a multilevel regression analysis. The research findings indicated that high buyer power and high substitution threat were associated with a preference for cost‐leadership strategies, and Japanese managers were significantly more likely to prefer a cost‐leadership strategy than U.S. managers. We also found that, under conditions of high buyer power, U.S. managers were less likely than Japanese managers to enter a market with a differentiation or focus strategy. We found little support for other interaction hypotheses, suggesting points of similarity between U.S. and Japanese managers. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications of our results. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

DEVELOPING A BUSINESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM: AN ANALYTIC HIERARCHICAL MODEL

A good business performance measurement system is a very effective tool to motivate and monitor employees of a company. Although interest in creating performance measurement models is widespread, a well-designed system is rare. To be successful in today's competitive environment, a good performance measurement systems should incorporate strategic success factors. The model proposed in this study uses a three-level hierarchical schema to combine financial and nonfinancial performance measures and emphasizes external as well as internal business performance measures. In comparison with previous methods, such a method is more likely to cover a broader set of measures that include operational as well as strategic control. A prototype based on the analytic hierarchical model can be applied to other business situations.     

Strategic groups and competitive enactment: a study of dynamic relationships between mental models and performance

This study used computer-assisted content analysis of more than four hundred presidents' letters to shareholders to examine empirical linkages between cognitive strategic groups clustered by themes in the reports and strategic groups clustered by performance. We found these groups converged as predicted by the literature, and that mental models and performance are involved in a recursive process of competitive enactment which contributes to strategic group stability. Our research used inductively derived themes from the letters to structure a mental model widely shared in the pharmaceutical industry, and then employed thematic variations to find stable clusters of companies. These thematic clusters were triangulated with the strategic groups from a published study of the same industry, in the same period, and were shown to converge. Additionally, longitudinal linkages between earlier mental models of strategic goals and later reports of performance were found. The findings of our large-scale empirical study support strategic group theory, demonstrate a novel approach to data mining, and pose questions for future research. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When will boards influence strategy? inclination × power = strategic change

While boards of directors are usually recognized as having the potential to affect strategic change in organizations, there is considerable debate as to whether such potential is typically realized. We seek to reconcile the debate on whether boards are typically passive vs. active players in the strategy realm by developing a model that specifies when boards are likely to influence organizational strategy and whether such an influence is likely to impel vs. impede change. Specifically, we develop arguments as to when certain demographic and processual features of boards imply a greater inclination for strategic change, when these features imply a greater preference for the status quo, and how differences in such inclinations will influence strategic change. We then also propose that a board's inclination for strategic change interacts with a board's power to affect change, generating a multiplicative effect on strategic change. These ideas are tested using survey and archival data from a national sample of over 3000 hospitals. The supportive findings suggest that strategic change is significantly affected by board demography and board processes, and that these governance effects manifest themselves most strongly in situations where boards are more powerful. We discuss these findings in terms of their relevance for theories of demography, agency, and power. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Unravelling the internal and external drivers of digital servitization: A dynamic capabilities and contingency perspective on firm strategy

Despite the increased interest in using digital technologies for servitization purposes, little is known about what drives firms towards a digital servitization strategy. Using a dynamic capabilities lens, we look into the relationships between two organizational mechanisms – exploitation and exploration – and firms' orientation towards digitization, servitization and digital servitization. On top, we examine the influence of two environmental contingencies – technological turbulence and competitive intensity – as potential influencers of these relationships. We collected and analyzed data of 139 Belgian firms through hierarchical regressions. Exploitation and exploration are positively associated with digital servitization, but exploration trumps the effect of exploitation when firms do both. Technological turbulence is positively associated with digitization regardless of the firm's level of exploration or exploitation, and competitive intensity only relates positively with servitization when firms emphasize exploration. Theoretically, we contribute to the literature by unravelling the relationship between firms' dynamic capabilities and their environment. In order to fully understand firms' strategic transition towards digital servitization, both should be considered. As managerial implications, we suggest that firms pay close attention to adapting their strategy to fit an increasingly changing environment.     

Asymmetric rivalry between strategic groups: response,speed of response and ex ante vs. ex post competitive interaction in the spanish bank deposit market

The objective of this study is to examine asymmetric rivalry between strategic groups in a given industry. Two research hypotheses argue for the existence of asymmetric rivalry in the sense that strategic groups of small companies have a greater degree of response but a slower speed of response to the actions of strategic groups of large companies, than vice versa. To test this, we use an ex post approach that examines the news releases published on the strategic actions and reactions of firms. A third hypothesis compares ex ante competitive expectations with ex post asymmetric rivalry between strategic groups. To test this, we compare ex post news on actions/reactions with an ex ante approach that estimates conjectural variations. The empirical application carried out on bank deposits in the Spanish market defines strategic groups in terms of size due to the historical and institutional conditions of the industry (deregulatory change). The results obtained show that rivalry patterns between strategic groups in terms of company size can be predicted as asymmetric in the sense that smaller bank strategic groups have a greater degree of response (Stackelberg ‘leader–follower’ competitive interaction), and a slower speed of response to the actions of larger bank strategic groups than is found the other way around. Moreover, ex ante expectations of aggressiveness on the part of larger strategic groups characterize greater ex post reactions from the smaller‐size strategic groups. Therefore, the size distribution of strategic groups is valuable to research on complex industries with deregulation changes. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic frameworks for understanding employer participation in school‐to‐work programs

The knowledge and skills inherent in human capital are increasingly recognized as the essence of competitive advantage. Extending the emerging literature on capability building, this paper explores the strategic decision of participating in school‐to‐work programs from the transaction cost and resource‐based view of the firm. Using data from a national sample, we find that both strategic perspectives help to explain decisions to participate in school‐to‐work activities. Our findings indicate that school‐to‐work programs and activities may be understood as interorganizational strategies from a transaction cost view and evidence of a firm's motivation to develop human capital to build competitive advantage from a resource‐based view. Implications for school‐to‐work public policy development in the United States and future research are identified. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.