Strategies Managment

Business Process Management Journal
Downloaded by Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Doctor Muhammad Shahid Khan At 00:51 17 May 2016 (PT)
Linking strategic practices and organizational performance to Porter's generic strategies

Richard S. Allen Marilyn M. Helms
Article information:
To cite this document:
Richard S. Allen Marilyn M. Helms, (2006),"Linking strategic practices and organizational performance to
Porter's generic strategies", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 433 - 454
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150610678069
Downloaded on: 17 May 2016, At: 00:51 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 115 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18904 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1992),"The Generic Strategy Trap", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 37-41 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb039467
(2011),"Generic strategies and performance evidence from manufacturing firms", International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 Iss 3 pp. 222-251 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401111111970
(2014),"Guidelines for applying Porter's five forces framework: a set of industry analysis templates",
Competitiveness Review, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp. 32-45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CR-06-2013-0059
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:531913 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Linking strategic practices and

organizational performance to
Porters generic strategies
Richard S. Allen
Linking strategic
practices
433
College of Business Administration,

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,
Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA, and
Marilyn M. Helms
Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia, USA
Abstract
Purpose While Porters generic strategies are a widely accepted typology of strategic options for
businesses, prior studies have not linked specific strategic practices with each generic strategy and
explored the associations between the practices and overall organizational performance. The purpose
of this paper is to propose and test the following two hypotheses: specific strategic practices (or tactics)
can be identified which are associated with each generic Porter strategy; and there are specific
strategic practices which are more strongly associated with higher levels of organizational
performance within each generic strategy.
Design/methodology/approach To test these hypotheses, a questionnaire was developed and
administered to a sample of 226 working adults. A factor analysis and regression analyses were used
to analyze the data.
Findings Findings include a list of critical strategic practices significantly associated with
organizational performance for each of Porters generic strategies.
Research limitations/implications Future research would be advised to include a more
geographically and randomly selected sample. Furthermore, the use of archival financial performance
data is suggested.
Practical implications Suggestions for managers crafting strategies and reinforcing supporting
strategic practices based on the findings of this research are discussed.
Originality/value This research has uncovered a core list of strategic practices which better
defines each generic Porter strategy. The authors have also pinpointed an even smaller list of critical
practices strongly associated with performance for each specific generic strategy.
Keywords Generics, Organizational performance, Strategic management, Product differentiation
Paper type Research paper
Generic strategies can be successfully linked to organizational performance through the use
of key strategic practices.
Porters (1985) generic strategies of low cost, differentiation, focus and combination
strategies are generally accepted as a strategic typology for organizations. However,
little empirical research has identified the strategic practices associated with each
generic strategy. Furthermore, research has not identified critical strategic practices
for each generic strategy to firm performance. This exploratory study attempts to
address this gap in the literature. From this study, empirical evidence using factor
Business Process Management

Journal
Vol. 12 No. 4, 2006
pp. 433-454
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/14637150610678069
BPMJ
12,4
434
analysis and regression analysis supports a group of strategic practices linked to

greater perceived organizational performance for each of Porters generic strategies.
Suggestions for managers crafting strategies and reinforcing supporting strategic
practices are included as well as recommendations for further research.
Porters generic business strategies
Strategy is an essential part of any effective business plan. By using an effective
competitive strategy, a company finds its industry niche and learns about its
customers (Porter, 1980). Porter (1985) asserts there are basic businesses strategies
differentiation, cost leadership, and focus and a company performs best by choosing
one strategy on which to concentrate. However, many researchers feel a combination of
these strategies may offer a company the best chance to achieve a competitive
advantage (Cross, 1999; Karnani, 1984; Miller and Friesen, 1986; White, 1986; Hill, 1988;
Mathur, 1988; Murray, 1988; Miller, 1992; Dess and Miller, 1993; Johnson and Scholes,
1993; Fuerer and Chaharbaghi, 1997; Hlavacka et al., 2001). Whatever strategy a
business chooses, it must fit with the company and its goals and objectives to gain a
competitive advantage (Kippenberger, 1996; Surowiecki, 1999; Parker and Helms, 1992;
Ross, 1999).
Porter purports companies must be competitive to become an industry leader
(Murdoch, 1999; Suutari, 1999), to be successful both nationally and abroad (Niemira,
2000; Davidson, 2001; Anon, 1998), and these strategies for gaining competitive
advantage apply to all industries in most nations (Brooks, 1993; Median and Chin,
1995; Kropf and Szafran, 1988; McNamee and McHugh, 1989; Green et al., 1993; Kim
and Lim, 1988; Liff et al., 1993; Campbell-Hunt, 2000).
While various types of organizational strategies have been identified over the years
(Miles and Snow, 1978; Chrisman et al., 1988; Porter, 1980) Porters generic strategies
remain the most commonly supported and identified in key strategic management
textbooks (David, 2000; Miller, 1998; Thompson and Stickland, 1998) and in the
literature (Kim and Lim, 1988; Miller and Dess, 1993). Porters (1980) generic strategies
can yield competitive advantage. Porter (1980) also suggests ensuring long-term
profitability, the firm must make a choice between one of the generic strategies rather
than end up being stuck in the middle.
Differentiation. Differentiation is one of Porters key business strategies (Reilly,
2002). When using this strategy, a company focuses its efforts on providing a unique
product or service (Hyatt, 2001; Porter, 1979, 1987, 1996; Bauer and Colgan, 2001;
Hlavacka et al., 2001; Cross, 1999). Since, the product or service is unique, this strategy
provides high customer loyalty (Porter, 1985; Hlavacka et al., 2001; Cross, 1999).
Product differentiation fulfills a customer need and involves tailoring the product or
service to the customer. This allows organizations to charge a premium price to
capture market share. The differentiation strategy is effectively implemented when the
business provides unique or superior value to the customer through product quality,
features, or after-sale support. Firms following a differentiation strategy can charge a
higher price for their products based on the product characteristics, the delivery
system, the quality of service, or the distribution channels. The quality may be real or
perceived based on fashion, brand name, or image. The differentiation strategy appeals
to a sophisticated or knowledgeable consumer interested in a unique or quality product
and willing to pay a higher price.
The key step in devising a differentiation strategy is to determine what makes a

company different from a competitors (McCracken, 2002; Reilly, 2002; Berthoff, 2002;
Rajecki, 2002; Tuminello, 2002; Surowiecki, 1999). Factors including market sector
quality of work, the size of the firm, the image, graphical reach, involvement in client
organizations, product, delivery system, and the marketing approach have been
suggested to differentiate a firm (McCracken, 2002; Davidson, 2001). To be effective,
the message of differentiation must reach the clients (McCracken, 2002), as the
customers perceptions of the company are important (Berthoff, 2002; Troy, 2002). Van
Raaij and Verhallen (1994) suggest bending the customers will to match the companys
mission through differentiation.
When using differentiation, firms must be prepared to add a premium to the cost
(Hyatt, 2001). This is not to suggest costs and prices are not considered; only it is not
the main focus (Hlavacka et al., 2001). However, since customers perceive the product
or service as unique, they are loyal to the company and willing to pay the higher price
for its products (Hlavacka et al., 2001; Venu, 2001; Cross, 1999).
Some key concepts for establishing differentiation include: speaking about the
product to select panels (McCracken, 2002), writing on key topics affecting the
company in the associations magazine or newsletter (McCracken, 2002), becoming
involved in the community (McCracken, 2002), being creative when composing the
companys portfolio (Tuminello, 2002), offering something the competitor does not or
cannot offer (Rajecki, 2002), adding flair and drama to the store layout (Differentiation
will be key, 2002), providing e-commerce (Chakravarthy, 2000), making access to
company information and products both quick and easy (Chakravarthy, 2000), using
company size as an advantage (Darrow et al., 2001), training employees with in-depth
product and service knowledge (Darrow et al., 2001), offering improved or innovative
products (Helms et al., 1997), emphasizing the companys state-of-the-art technology,
quality service, and unique products/services (Hlavacka et al., 2001; Bright, 2002),
using photos and renderings in brochures (McCracken, 2002), and selecting products
and services for which there is a strong local need (Darrow et al., 2001).
Cost leadership. Another of Porters generic strategies is cost leadership (Malburg,
2000). This strategy focuses on gaining competitive advantage by having the lowest
cost in the industry (Porter, 1979, 1987, 1996; Bauer and Colgan, 2001; Hyatt, 2001;
Anon, 1998; Davidson, 2001; Cross, 1999). In order to achieve a low-cost advantage, an
organization must have a low-cost leadership strategy, low-cost manufacturing, and a
workforce committed to the low-cost strategy (Malburg, 2000). The organization must
be willing to discontinue any activities in which they do not have a cost advantage
and should consider outsourcing activities to other organizations with a cost
advantage (Malburg, 2000). For an effective cost leadership strategy, a firm must have
a large market share (Hyatt, 2001). There are many areas to achieve cost leadership
such as mass production, mass distribution, economies of scale, technology, product
design, input cost, capacity utilization of resources, and access to raw materials
(Malburg, 2000; Venu, 2001; Davidson, 2001). Porter (1985) purports only one firm in
an industry can be the cost leader (Venu, 2001; Sy, 2002) and if this is the only
difference between a firm and competitors, the best strategic choice is the low cost
leadership role (Malburg, 2000).
Lower costs and cost advantages result from process innovations, learning curve
benefits, economics of scale, product designs reducing manufacturing time and costs,
Linking strategic
practices
435
BPMJ
12,4
436
and reengineering activities. A low-cost or cost leadership strategy is effectively

implemented when the business designs, produces, and markets a comparable product
more efficiently than its competitors. The firm may have access to raw materials or
superior proprietary technology which helps to lower costs.
Firms do not have to sacrifice revenue to be the cost leader since high revenue is
achieved through obtaining a large market share (Porter, 1979, 1987, 1996; Bauer and
Colgan, 2001). Lower prices lead to higher demand and, therefore, to a larger market
share (Helms et al., 1997). As a low cost leader, an organization can present barriers
against new market entrants who would need large amounts of capital to enter the
market (Hyatt, 2001). The leader then is somewhat insulated from industry wide price
reductions (Porter, 1980; Hlavacka et al., 2001; Malburg, 2000). The cost leadership
strategy does have disadvantages. It creates little customer loyalty and if a firm lowers
prices too much, it may lose revenues (Cross, 1999).
Focus. In the focus strategy, a firm targets a specific segment of the market
(Davidson, 2001; Porter, 1979, 1987, 1996; Bauer and Colgan, 2001; Cross, 1999;
Hlavacka et al., 2001; Hyatt, 2001). The firm can choose to focus on a select customer
group, product range, geographical area, or service line (Anon, 1998; Hyatt, 2001; Venu,
2001; Darrow et al., 2001; Martin, 1999; McCracken, 2002). For example, some European
firms focus solely on the European market (Stone, 1995). Focus also is based on
adopting a narrow competitive scope within an industry. Focus aims at growing
market share through operating in a niche market or in markets either not attractive to,
or overlooked by, larger competitors. These niches arise from a number of factors
including geography, buyer characteristics, and product specifications or
requirements. A successful focus strategy (Porter, 1980) depends upon an industry
segment large enough to have good growth potential but not of key importance to other
major competitors. Market penetration or market development can be an important
focus strategy. Midsize and large firms use focus-based strategies but only in
conjunction with differentiation or cost leadership generic strategies. But, focus
strategies are most effective when consumers have distinct preferences and when the
niche has not been pursued by rival firms (David, 2000).
Combination. An organization may also choose a combination strategy by mixing of
the aforementioned generic strategies. For example, a firm may choose to have a
focused differentiation strategy. This means the organization has a unique product
offered to a targeted market segment. An organization may also choose to have a
focused cost-leadership strategy. In this instance, an organization would use a cost
leadership strategy targeted to a specific market segment.
There is much debate as to whether or not a company can have a differentiation and
low-cost leadership strategy at the same time (Helms et al., 1997). Porter felt
differentiation and cost-leadership were mutually exclusive (Helms et al., 1997;
Campbell-Hunt, 2000). However, research shows this is not the case (Buzzell and Gale,
1987; Buzzell and Wiersema, 1981; Gupta, 1995; Hall, 1983; Jones and Butler, 1988;
Miller and Friesen, 1986; Miller, 1998; Phillips et al., 1983; Slocum et al., 1994; White,
1986; Wright, 1987; Karnani, 1984; Mathur, 1988; Miller, 1992; Dess and Miller, 1993;
Johnson and Scholes, 1993; Fuerer and Chaharbaghi, 1997, Hlavacka et al., 2001).
Kumar et al. (1997) in their study of generic strategies used in the hospital industry
found when hospitals follow a focused cost leadership hybrid strategy they exhibit
higher performance than those following either cost leadership or differentiation alone.
Similarly in their research on the UK wine industry, Richardson and Dennis (2003)
found the hybrid focused differentiation approach was best for niche segments. Spanos
et al. (2004) studied the Greek manufacturing industry and found hybrid strategies
were preferable to pure strategies.
According to Porter (Argyres and McGaha, 2002), lower cost and differentiation are
directly connected with profitability. As research addressed the relationship between
strategy and performance, some studies concluded only pure strategies (i.e. generic
strategies of cost leadership or differentiation) resulted in superior performance, while
other research found combination strategies (i.e. low-cost and differentiation) were
optimal. This debate continues in the literature.
Generic strategy and performance link
The strategy literature provides numerous theories, research methodologies, and ideas
on the strategy-performance relationship. Strategy research has its roots in industrial
organization (IO) theory. Within Bain (1956) and Mason (1939), the IO framework of
industry behavior, firm performance or profitability is seen as a function of the
industry structure. Industry characteristics rather than firm-based issues are found to
determine firm performance (Barney, 1986). This structure-conduct-performance model
from IO and economics has been used in industries with high concentrations and
similar firms (Seth and Thomas, 1994). Studies, however, have not found a link
between strategy and performance (McGee and Thomas, 1986, 1992). Others have
found the link between strategy and performance lessened by situational variables
including a focus on manufacturing and profitability (Davis and Schul, 1993; Zahra,
1993). To investigate the strategy and performance link, many researchers began
utilizing approaches found to be generalizable across industries, specifically those
proposed by Porter (1980, 1985, 1987).
Pure generic strategies. Researchers found support for Porters (1980, 1985) original
generic strategies (Dess and Davis, 1984; Hambrick, 1981, 1982; Hawes and Crittendon,
1984; Nayyar, 1993; Parker and Helms, 1992; Reitsperger et al., 1993). Dess and Davis
(1984) examined industrial products businesses and suggested performance was
achieved through the adoption of a single strategy. Hambrick (1983) investigated
capital goods producers and industrial product manufacturers and found support for
generic strategies. Ross (1999) supported two distinct focus strategies including
low-cost and differentiation one aimed at distinct needs in terms of cost in a narrow
target market and the other at distinct customization requirements in a narrow target
market. Parker and Helms (1992) found superior performance associated with mixed
and reactive strategies as well as with single generic strategies.
Combination generic strategies. Other researchers found combination strategies to
be optimal and associated with superior performance (Buzzell and Gale, 1987; Buzzell
and Wiersema, 1981; Hall, 1983; Hill, 1988; Murray, 1988; Phillips et al., 1983; White,
1986; Wright, 1987; Wright et al., 1991). Several studies have suggested in higher
performing businesses, low cost and differentiation strategy may be adopted
simultaneously (Gupta, 1995; Slocum et al., 1994). In an attempt to investigate whether
low cost and differentiation are mutually exclusive or whether they can be adopted
simultaneously, Helms et al. (1997) found business units which simultaneously
compete on low cost and differentiation strategies (combination strategies) have higher
returns on investment.
Linking strategic
practices
437
BPMJ
12,4
438
Gaps and contradictions remain in the strategy research. Ironically, some of the
research supporting singular generic strategies also produces results which sow seeds
of doubt about the relationship between singular generic strategy and superior
performance, and it appears some businesses succeed only when they combine
differentiation and low cost generic strategies (Hill, 1988, Murray, 1988). For example,
White (1986) found 19 of the 69 business units examined had the highest ROI and
achieved competitive advantage based on combined cost and differentiation strategies.
Similar support for a combination strategy was found by Phillips et al. (1983). Wright
and Parsinia (1988) identified successful firms using combined generic strategies in
fragment industries including banking, retailing, distributing, and creative businesses.
As a result of these studies and other work, Hill (1988) proposed the generic
business-level strategies of differentiation and overall cost leadership are not
incompatible but may be combined in some firms to achieve competitive advantage.
In summary, the strategy literature reveals contradictory results on the link
between singular generic strategy and performance. As Campbell-Hunt (2000) points
out, the dominant paradigm of competitive strategy is now over two decades old, but it
has yet to prove its adequacy as a descriptive framework or move beyond its
propositions about the performance consequences of different strategic designs.
Further research on the relationship between strategy and firm performance, including
potential moderators of this relationship, is clearly needed in order to advance strategic
theory.
Firm performance measures
While researchers may not always agree on the best strategy, or strategy combination,
most if not all, support the long-term benefits of strategic planning for the successful
performance of an organization or business unit. However, measuring the performance
of a company is challenging. Researchers (Buckley et al., 1988; Littler, 1988; Day and
Wensley, 1988) disagree about how to both define and operationalize performance.
Most studies on organizational performance use a variety of financial and
non-financial success measures. Researchers employ financial measures such as profit
(Saunders and Wong, 1985; Hooley and Lynch, 1985; Baker et al., 1988), turnover
(Frazier and Howell, 1983), return on investment (Hooley and Lynch, 1985), return on
capital employed (Baker et al., 1988), and inventory turnover (Frazier and Howell,
1983). Nonfinancial measures include innovativeness (Goldsmith and Clutterbuck,
1984) and market standing (Saunders and Wong, 1985; Hooley and Lynch, 1985). When
performance is measured at a variety of levels (e.g. national, industry, company, and
product), comparison of results is difficult (Baker and Hart, 1989; Buckley et al., 1988;
Frazier and Howell, 1983).
Measures of firm performance generally include such bottom-line, financial
indicators as sales, profits, cash flow, return on equity, and growth. It is important to
determine how a firm compares with its industry competitors when assessing firm
performance (Dess and Robinson, 1984). With the multitude of competitive
environments faced by firms in differing industries, knowing only absolute financial
numbers such as sales, profits, or cash flow is not very illuminating unless viewed in
the context of how well the firm is doing compared to their competition. Therefore, it is
important to use an industry comparison approach when making firm performance
assessments for organizations sampled from a wide variety of industries.
Identifying organizational performance measures

Lusch and Laczniak (1989) define business performance as the total economic results of
the activities undertaken by an organization. Walker and Ruekert (1987) found primary
dimensions of business performance could be grouped into the three categories of
effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability. But there is little agreement as to which
measure is best. Thus, any comparison of business performance with only these three
dimensions involve substantial trade-offs: good performance on one dimension often
means sacrificing performance on another (Donaldson, 1984).
In many research situations it is impractical or impossible to access objective
measures of organizational performance. Even if such measures were available it does
not guarantee the accuracy of the performance measurement. For example, when a
sample contains a variety of industries, performance measurement and comparisons
can be particularly problematic. What is considered excellent performance in one
industry may be considered poor or middling performance in another industry. If
researchers limit themselves to a single industry, the performance measures may be
more meaningful, but the generalizability of the findings to other industries is
problematic.
The literature has remained largely at the conceptual level in discussing the link
between the generic strategies and firm performance. Authors agree it should and must
exist, but researchers have not determined which specific strategic practices within the
generic strategy framework best achieve organizational performance goals. It seems
some combination of practices is more effective than others, but propositions on
strategic practices have remained largely untested and there is a recognized need for
empirical work in this area. This exploratory research begins to fill this gap in the
literature and considers whether specific strategic practices used by organizations are
better than others when comparing employees perceptions of firm performance.
Linking strategic
practices
439
Research model
The research model presented in Figure 1 shows the proposed relationships explored in
this study. The basic idea is that organizational strategy should determine the strategic
practices (or tactics) used by a firm. Use of the appropriate strategic practices will help
drive organizational performance.
The following two hypotheses are proposed based on this research model:
H1. Specific strategic practices (or tactics) can be identified which are associated
with each generic Porter strategy.
H2. There are specific strategic practices which are more strongly associated with
higher levels of organizational performance within each generic strategy.
Porters
Generic
Business
Strategies
Strategic
Practices
& Tactics
Organizational
Performance
Figure 1.
Research model
BPMJ
12,4
440
Research study
A questionnaire was developed to investigate the linkage between Porters generic
strategies, strategic practices, and performance. Existing scales and items were utilized
or adapted where applicable to develop a questionnaire to test the aforementioned
hypotheses. New items and Likert-type scales were composed when appropriate
existing items or scales could not be located.
The questionnaire included a cover page explaining the purpose of the survey and
asked respondents to select a single organization as a point of reference when
answering the survey questions. Respondents were guaranteed anonymity. If the
organization under study had multiple divisions or subsidiaries, respondents were
asked to base their answers on the specific division or subsidiary in which they
worked. Respondents were given ample time to complete the survey and researchers
were on hand to personally administer the questionnaire and answer any questions.
In addition to summary information about the organization, respondents were
polled on the length of employment, number of employees in the organization, the
primary business sector, whether the organization was unionized, and their position
within the organization.
Strategy questions. A section of 25 questions regarding the various strategic
practices or tactics used by the organization followed the general demographic and
personal information section. These items were developed to operationalize each of
Porters (1980) four generic strategies. While the literature review did not identify an
existing instrument of strategic practices to operationalize Porters typology, one was
developed from these key practices or tactics previously reviewed for each generic
strategy.
Respondents were asked to estimate how frequently the various strategic practices
are used by their organization. Table I presents some samples of the strategy questions
and the scale used.
Organizational performance questions. Firm performance was measured using a
scale of five items adapted from Dess and Robinson (1984). Since, this research was
exploratory it was important to include a broad range of organizations in the sample to
improve the generalizability of the findings and reduce the likelihood of industry
specific performance effects. Firm performance was measured using a scale of five
items. The five point, Likert-type scale asked respondents to rate how their
organization compared to competitors on a series of key objective performance
indicators including total revenue growth, total asset growth, net income growth,
market share growth, and overall performance or success. Respondents were asked to
compare their organizations performance level to competitors for each of the five
items, over the most recent three-year period in which they worked for the
organization.
Respondents were cautioned some of the measures might not apply to the
organization chosen as their point of reference. For example, market share growth
might not apply to a government agency. Accordingly, in addition to the given choices,
a not applicable choice was also available for respondents in these situations. Sample
questions are shown in Table II.
This organizational performance scale allows the comparison of a wide variety of
organizations on performance measures are commonly accepted as valid indicators of
organizational success. The scale allows comparisons across industries because it does
Vigorous pursuit of cost reductions

Providing outstanding customer
service
Improving operational efficiency
Controlling the quality of
products/services
Intense supervision of front-line
personnel
Developing brand or company
name identification
Targeting a specific market niche
or segment
Providing specialty
products/services
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Almost never
(1-20 percent)
Never
(0 percent)
3
3
Some times
(21-40 percent)
4
4
About half
(41-60 percent)
5
5
Most times
(61-80 percent)
6
6
Almost always
(81-99 percent)
7
7
Always
(100 percent)
Linking strategic
practices
441
Table I.
BPMJ
12,4
(Average over three years)
442
Table II.
Total revenue growth

Total asset growth
Net income growth
Market share growth
Overall performance/success
Lowest
1-20
percent
Lower
21-40
percent
Middle
41-60
percent
Next
61-80
percent
Top
81-100
percent
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Not
Applicable
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
not rely on specific results in each category, but instead is based on how well the
organization is performing relative to its competitors. Thus, an organization with high
growth (top 81-100 percent) in a low performing sector can be compared with an
organization performing with similar growth levels in a high performing sector. The
Cronbach a for the cumulative organizational performance scale was 0.95. This
compares favorably with previous research using this scale to measure organizational
performance.
The sample
A sample of 226 graduate students enrolled in either an evening MBA or weekend
executive MBA program were administered the questionnaire. The subjects, albeit a
convenience sample, represented a broad cross section of working adults. For inclusion
in the final study, it was determined a respondent must have at least six months
employment at the organization under study to have adequate organizational
knowledge to accurately complete the questionnaire. If respondents were not currently
employed, or if employment with their current organization was less than six months,
they were instructed to select a different organization as their reference point (provided
they had been employed for at least six months). Post administration interviews with
the respondents reinforced these criteria and respondents with a minimum of six
months work experience reported no difficulty in answering the survey questions.
Five respondents were eliminated because they had less than six months prior work
experience, resulting in a final sample size of 221 with a 97 percent response rate.
Respondents had an average of four years work experience, but the time employed
ranged from six months to 27 years with a standard deviation of 4.37 years. Of those
respondents, 38 percent held professional or technical positions in their organization,
16 percent were in middle management, 16 percent were in administrative roles,
11 percent were front-line managers and 6 percent were senior managers.
The organizations included in the sample had a mean number of 1,467 employees
with a range from 3 to 57,000 employees. A total of 62 percent were service
organizations, 28 percent were manufacturing and 10 percent were in the
government/non-profit sector. About 17 percent of the organizations were unionized.
Strategy scales: factor analysis
The strategy related items were subjected to a factor analysis to test whether the
strategic practices naturally grouped into Porters (1980, 1985) generic strategies.
Using SPSS principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation and Kaiser
normalization, a four factor solution emerged explained 50.67 percent of the variance
with an eigen value of 1.373.
As is typically the case with a factor analysis, the individual items (strategic
practices) loaded with differing strengths onto several identified factors. The four
factors identified were composed of those strategic practices with the highest factor
loadings. Thus, each factor is defined by a different set of strategic practices. The
strategic practices and loadings for each factor are summarized in Table III.
The highest factor loadings for each item were included in Table III. This is not to
imply that any of the individual strategic practices are exclusive to a single strategy.
For example, the practice of extensive training of front-line personnel loaded onto the
factor which we labeled focus-cost leadership at the 0.455. It also loaded onto the other
three factors, but at much weaker levels (for example, 0.244 on the differentiation
factor, and at miniscule levels onto the other two factors). Certainly training of frontline
personnel is also important to the other three strategies, but our data indicated that it is
most strongly associated with the first factor.
After all the individual practices which comprised each factor were analyzed it
appears the resulting factors conceptually correspond with Porters (1980, 1985)
Strategy
Innovation in marketing technology and
methods
Forecasting new market growth
Forecasting existing market growth
Utilizing advertising
Fostering innovation and creativity
Developing brand identification
Refining existing products/services
Building a positive reputation within the
industry for technological leadership
Extensive training of marketing personnel
Developing a broad range of new
products/services
Building high market share
Controlling the quality of
products/services
Providing outstanding customer service
Improving operational efficiency
Extensive training of front-line personnel
Intense supervision of front-line personnel
Vigorous pursuit of cost reductions
Tight control of overhead costs
Minimizing distribution costs
Providing specialty products/services
Targeting a specific market
Dropping unprofitable customers
Producing products/services for high
price market segments
Linking strategic
practices
443
Product
Focus-cost
Cost
Focus product
differentiation leadership leadership differentiation
0.776
0.750
0.724
0.706
0.659
0.657
0.646
0.594
0.567
0.502
0.366
0.822
0.748
0.629
0.455
0.206
0.880
0.874
0.423
0.652
0.649
0.548
0.545
Table III.
Factor analysis factor
loadings for the four
generic strategies
BPMJ
12,4
444
framework of four generic organizational strategies. Factor 1 reasonably appears to

represent a product differentiation strategy, factor 2 was the focus-cost leadership
strategy, factor 3 was the cost leadership strategy, and factor 4 was the focus-product
differentiation strategy. This factor analysis supports H1 that specific strategic
practices (or tactics) which are associated with each generic Porter strategy can be
identified.
These four factors and their associated items were used to form scales. Cronbach as
were computed for the scale reliabilities. The product differentiation factor of 11 items
has an a of 0.8997; the focus-cost leadership factor of five items had an a of 0.7707, the
cost leadership scale consisted of three items with an a of 0.7761, and the focus-product
differentiation factor with four items had an a of 0.5723.
While the a for factor 4 was not as strong as the other three factors, it is still within
the expected range for a broad construct established by Van de Ven and Ferry (1980)
and was deemed acceptable. Likewise, the average inter-factor correlations were low
and within the acceptable range established by Van de Ven and Ferry (1980). The focus
strategies concentrate on smaller, unique, or niche markets and are combination
strategies (with differentiation or cost leadership). Thus, they experience more
conceptual over-lap in strategic positioning than the pure forms of cost leadership or
product differentiation, therefore, their a would be expected, a priori, to be lower than
the pure strategic forms.
Product differentiation factor. Because a product differentiation strategy
emphasizes the uniqueness of a product or service and attempts to make the
product or service special in the mind of the customer, marketing related actives will
predominate. All 11 of the factor loadings are indeed marketing related and emphasize
developing or refining products and services and planning for market growth. By
fostering innovation and creativity as well as building a reputation of technological
leadership, a firm should be assured of a stream of new innovations to attract the
interests of new customers as well as to meet existing customers demands for
uniqueness.
Focus-cost leadership factor. For this factor an emphasis on reducing costs while at
the same time meeting the needs of an undeveloped niche is expected a priori. The
items which loaded highly on this factor support this strategy. By providing
outstanding customer service a previously neglected market segment is catered to. The
variables of improving operational efficiency and controlling quality emphasize the
overarching cost objectives. Quality is important to insuring low costs because
producing a product or delivering a service right, the first time, eliminates rework and
scrap costs. Extensive training and supervision of front-line personnel will also serve
to meet customer needs by streamlining processes to provide for cost efficiency.
Cost leadership factor. Three strategic practices comprise the cost leadership factor.
A deep discount retailer using a pure cost minimization strategy stresses ongoing cost
reductions and tight control of overhead costs to the exclusion of almost any other
organizational issues. This is contrasted with a focus-cost leadership retailer who also
competes on the basis of providing outstanding customer service and quality in
addition to low costs for a chosen niche.
Focus-product differentiation factor. The focus-product differentiation factor again
emphasizes a unique product or service but to a smaller, possibly undefined or
overlooked specialty niche. First targeting a specific market and providing them with
specialty products and service is by definition, the focus product differentiation

strategy. Dropping unprofitable customers ensures an even tighter focus while
providing products and services for high price market segments further focuses the
strategy on customers with unique needs.
Organizational performance scale. Finally, the Cronbach a for the organizational
performance scale was 0.9504. This compares favorably to previous research using this
scale to measure organizational performance of 0.93 (Allen and Kilmann, 2001; Allen
and Helms, 2002; Allen et al., 2004).
Linking strategic
practices
445
Analysis and results

The descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table IV.
A correlation analysis of the four strategy scales (from the factor analysis) indicate
each is significantly associated with organizational performance. Thus, more extensive
use of the strategic practices comprise the scales was associated with higher levels of
performance.
The correlation matrix also indicates strong correlation between the strategy scales.
These correlations make conceptual sense and were expected. The items comprising
the strategy scales are all strategic practices or tactics and there is a conceptual overlap
between the items. For example, there is a 0.495 correlation between the product
differentiation and focus-product differentiation strategies. These two strategies, by
definition are very similar in that they utilize differentiation tactics, but the focus
version targets a specialized market. Likewise, there are conceptual similarities
between many of the strategic practices that tend to make them more similar than
different.
The primary interest is in uncovering what specific practices really make a
difference in determining a specific strategy. This research question is explored in the
following section.
Organizational performance analysis: regression results
What practices or tactics have the most significant impact on their relationship with
organizational performance? In H2, the authors assert there are specific practices
which differentiate the effectiveness of each strategy.
To investigate the relationships between generic strategies and specific strategic
variables to performance, a stepwise variation of multiple regressions was employed to
test for differences in significant performance based on the four generic strategies
previously identified in the factor analysis. Organizations scoring above the mean on
each of the four strategy scales were selected for inclusion in a regression equation for
1
2
3
4
5
Cost leadership scale

Product differentiation scale
Focus-cost scale
Focus differentiation scale
Overall performance
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01
Mean
SD
14.58
50.36
25.95
16.96
17.63
4.08
13.4
5.25
4.64
5.48
218
206
219
212
177
1.000
0.418 * *
0.436 * *
0.353 * *
0.394 * *
1.000
0.538 * * 1.000
0.495 * * 0.303 * * 1.000
0.568 * * 0.480 * * 0.297 * * 1.000
Table IV.
Descriptive statistics and
correlation matrix for
strategy and performance
scales
BPMJ
12,4
446
each of the four generic strategy types. The regression analysis found a smaller subset of
the strategic practices for each factor was associated with significantly higher levels of
performance for the different types of strategies. A regression equation was calculated
for each of the four generic factors using overall organizational performance as the
dependent variable and the factor-loaded strategic practices as independent variables.
The ANOVA results (Table V) indicate between 1 and 4 strategic practices were
significant predictors of performance for each of the four generic strategies and
explained from 41 percent (r 2 0.41 for the differentiation strategy) to 16 percent
(r 2 0.16 for differentiation) of the variance in the organizational performance variable.
The regression results for the reward practices which were associated with
significantly higher levels of performance for each respective type of strategy are
summarized in Table VI.
Discussion and conclusions
This exploratory research was undertaken to identify strategic practices associated
with Porters generic strategies. While Porters (1985) generic strategies have been
widely accepted by academic and practitioner audiences, few studies have linked
particular strategic practices or tactics to each of the strategies. Because a chosen
strategy is a set of operationalized practices and tactics, understanding the critical
practices linked with organizational performance for each generic strategy would
provide clearer guidance for top management and strategic planners. These priorities
would focus actions toward organizational success, as evidenced by the organizations
performance. In the discussion below, the critical strategic practices associated with
each generic strategy are summarized followed by implications for both practitioners
and academicians.
Differentiation
Examining each specific generic strategy indicates a relatively small number of
strategic practices were significantly correlated with organizational performance. For
the differentiation strategy, innovation seems to be the most critical factor for success.
Fostering innovation and creativity as well as innovation in marketing technology and
methods were both significant practices. One can see this evidenced in a company like
Hewlett-Packard. HP was founded on the core values of innovation and creativity and
has used the slogan invent in company marketing. This makes sense because a
company in the information technology sector must constantly be innovating in order
to keep up with the fast-moving, ever changing marketplace.
Product
differentiation
Table V.
ANOVA results
Degrees of freedom
Strategic practices significant
predictors of performance
F-statistic
R
R2
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01
11
3
9.723 * *
0.638
0.407
Cost
leadership
3
1
11.360 * *
0.406
0.165
Focus-cost
leadership
5
4
14.921 * *
0.551
0.304
Focus-product
differentiation
4
2
7.979 * *
0.400
0.160
Differentiation
Cost leadership
Focus/cost
Extensive training of
marketing personnel
Vigorous pursuit
of cost reductions
Providing outstanding
customer service
(0.323) * *
Improving operational
efficiency (0.274) * *
Developing a broad range Tight control of

overhead costs
of new products or
services
Refining existing
products or services
Developing brand
identification
Innovation in marketing
technology and methods
(0.187) *
Utilizing advertising
Building a positive
relationship within the
industry for technological
leadership
Forecasting existing
market growth
Forecasting new market
growth
Fostering innovation and
creativity (0.251) * *
Building high market
share (0.306) * *
Minimizing
distribution costs
(0.237) * *
Focus/differentiation
Providing specialty
products and services
(0.181) * *
Producing products or
services for high price
market segments
(0.252) * *
Controlling the quality of Dropping unprofitable
products or services
customers
(20.248) * *
Targeting a specific
Extensive training of
market
front-line personnel
(0.253) * *
Intensive supervision of
front-line personnel
Notes: *b significant at the , 0.05 level; * *b significant at the , 0.01 level
Focus-differentiation
Even though building high market share was also a significant strategic practice for
the differentiation strategy, this practice separates the differentiation strategy apart
from the focus/differentiation strategy. Whereas the differentiation strategy goal is
building a large share of a broad market, the focus/differentiation strategy is much
more targeted. The significant strategic practices for a focus/differentiation strategy
include producing products or services for high price market segments and providing
specialty products and services. For example, an automobile company like Ferrari uses
a focus-differentiation hybrid strategy. Ferraris success is from targeted a very small
portion of the car buying public willing to pay for an ultra-high performance vehicle.
Cost-leadership
In contrast, the cost leadership strategy had only one significant tactic minimizing
distribution costs. This is not to say other cost leadership practices, namely the
vigorous pursuit of cost reductions and tight control of overhead costs are not integral
parts of this strategy. All organizations attempting to compete with this strategy need
to be cognizant of these practices. But the practice which appears to differentiate the
Linking strategic
practices
447
Table VI.
Regression results
standardized b
coefficients
BPMJ
12,4
448
organizations using this approach is the minimization of distribution costs. Nowhere is

this more apparent than in the grocery business. Distribution and logistics costs are
absolutely critical to grocery stores which typically compete on extremely thin,
single-digit margins.
Focus-cost
The focus/cost strategy is different than the pure cost leadership strategy. While
improving operational efficiency is important, the other critical success factors focused
more on quality and service issues. Providing outstanding customer service was
important. This can be accomplished by focusing on one of the other significant
practices extensive training of front-line personnel. These practices in turn make it
possible for the organization to achieve another critical success practice controlling
the quality of their products or services. The Saturn division of GM, for example,
competes in the low-cost segment of the automobile market. They attempt to
differentiate themselves from other low-cost automakers is by providing extremely
user-friendly customer service. Saturns dealerships initiated the no-haggle pricing
scheme and vehicle service centers combine customer-friendly hours and comfortable
waiting areas. Saturn uses the principles of participative management and
empowerment of their front-line workers and invests heavily in the training of
front-line personnel. These practices support quality and productivity and the can
more effectively compete in the niche they have carved out for themselves in the
low-cost automobile market.
Implications for managers
Even though this study was exploratory in nature, the results are interesting for
executives, top-level managers and directors. The findings support much of the
popular literature and discussions about aligning strategic practices consistent
with the chosen generic strategy for optimal organizational performance. The
popular press urges managers to choose a strategy and then to follow the chosen
strategy. Thus, matching key strategic practices to the generic strategy is
intuitively appealing to practitioners and academicians. For companies following a
generic strategy, this research has uncovered a core list of strategic practices
which help better define each strategy. The authors have also pinpointed an even
smaller list of critical practices strongly associated with performance for the
specific generic strategy in question.
This does not mean organizations can be successful with a particular strategy solely
by focusing on just the significant practices. As was previously mentioned, a company
that is attempting to compete with a cost leadership strategy cannot focus solely on
minimizing distribution costs and forget about the vigorous pursuit of other cost
reductions or the tight control of overhead costs. Their competitors would easily
under-price them if they did.
What this research does mean is managers must focus on all the practices which
define their chosen strategy. If you want to perform at a significantly higher level than
your competition you must excel at the critical and most statistically significant
practices identified in this study. These findings have important practical implications
for senior managers and others responsible for the development, implementation, or
execution of strategies in organizations. Top managers must work closely with
lower-level managers to implement strategic practices consistent with and supportive
of the chosen organizational strategy. The relationship between performance and

strategy must be clearly communicated the employees so they understand the
organizations generic strategy as well as the linkages between their lower-level
strategic practices and the overall firm performance and ultimately longevity and
security.
Linking strategic
practices
Areas for further research

The preliminary findings of this research require further, detailed study to uncover the
psychological underpinnings responsible for the reported results. As with any
exploratory research, more interesting and important research questions have been
uncovered. Is an organizations environment a moderator on the effects of strategic
practices on performance? Does the relative importance of strategic practices change
over time or over the life cycle of a firm? Do strategic practices lose their effectiveness
over time? Are the strategic practices, once known in an industry, subject to
duplication and loss of effectiveness. Do trends in organizational restructuring,
information technology, demographics, and globalization influence the choice and
implementation of organizational strategies? Do emerging trends of
mass-customization force the combination or blurring of generic strategies? All are
important questions for future research.
Moreover, researchers are encouraged to improve on the limitations of the
present study. To begin with, a more geographically diverse sample of individuals
and organizations should be included in subsequent studies. The use of a
convenience sample served initial theory-building aims but a broader geographic
range of organizations and respondents would be preferred.
Additionally, other studies might access archival financial performance data of the
organizations so they can be analyzed independently of the other data. This could
reduce the possibility of common variance errors. Perhaps a series of case studies with
several organizations supplying their formal documents and allowing researchers to
interview managers concerning the strategic practices utilized by the organizations
could further aid understanding.
449
References
Allen, R. and Helms, M. (2002), Employee perceptions of the relationship between strategy,
rewards, and organizational performance, Journal of Business Strategies, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 115-39.
Allen, R. and Kilmann, R. (2001), The role of the reward system for a total quality management
based strategy, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 110-31.
Allen, R., Helms, M., Takada, M. and White, C. (2004), Rewards and organizational performance
in Japan and the United States: a comparison, Compensation & Benefits Review,
January/February, pp. 7-14.
Anon (1998), Strategy according to Michael Porter, The Antidote from CSBS, Vol. 16, pp. 24-5.
Argyres, N. and McGaha, A.M. (2002), An interview with Michael Porter, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 43-52.
Bain, J.S. (1956), Barriers to New Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Baker, M.J. and Hart, S. (1989), Marketing and Competitive Success, Philip Allan, Hemel
Hempstead.
BPMJ
12,4
450
Baker, M.J., Black, C.D. and Hart, S. (1988), The competitiveness of British industry: what really
makes the difference?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 70-85.
Barney, J.B. (1986), Types of competition and the theory of strategy: toward an integrated
framework, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 110, pp. 791-800.
Bauer, C. and Colgan, J. (2001), Planning for electronic commerce strategy: an explanatory study
from the financial services sector, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2,
pp. 24-32.
Berthoff, A. (2002), Differentiation II, Computer Dealer News., Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 20.
Bright, J. (2002), The missing revenue link, Communications International, March, pp. 46-7.
Brooks, M.R. (1993), International competitiveness: assessing and exploring competitive
advantage by ocean container carriers, Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 275-93.
Buckley, P., Pass, C.L. and Prescott, K. (1988), Measures of international competitiveness: a
critical survey, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 4, pp. 175-200.
Buzzell, B.T. and Gale, B.T. (1987), Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Buzzell, R.D. and Wiersema, F.D. (1981), Successful share building strategies, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 135-44.
Campbell-Hunt, C. (2000), What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A
meta-analysis, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-54.
Chakravarthy, S. (2000), Business line: e-strategy: different strokes, Businessline, October 4.
Chrisman, J., Hofer, C. and Bolton, W. (1988), Toward a system for classifying business
strategies, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 413-28.
Cross, L. (1999), Strategy drives marketing success, Graphic Arts Monthly, Vol. 71 No. 2, p. 96.
Darrow, W.P., Algin, B. and King, D.H. (2001), David vs Goliath in the hardware industry:
generic strategies and critical success factors as revealed by business practice, The
Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Vol. 37 Nos 2/3, pp. 97-109.
David, F. (2000), Strategic Management Concepts and Cases, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Davidson, S. (2001), Seizing the competitive advantage, Community Banker, Vol. 10 No. 8,
pp. 32-4.
Davis, P.S. and Schul, P.L. (1993), Addressing the contingent effects of business unit strategic
orientation on relationships between organizational context and business unit
performance, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 183-200.
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing
competitive superiority, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 1-20.
Dess, G.G. and Davis, P.S. (1984), Porters generic strategies as determinants of strategic group
membership and performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 467-88.
Dess, G.G. and Miller, A. (1993), Strategic Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. Jr (1984), Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 265-73.
Differentiation will be key (2002), Differentiation will be key, Grocer, Vol. 225 No. 7546, p. 18.
Donaldson, G. (1984), Managing Corporate Wealth, Praeger, New York, NY.
Frazier, G.L. and Howell, R.D. (1983), Business definition and performance, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47, pp. 59-67.
Fuerer, R. and Chaharbaghi, K. (1997), Strategy development: past, present, and future,
Training for Quality, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 58-70.
Goldsmith, W. and Clutterbuck, D. (1984), The Winning Streak: Britains Top Companies Reveal
their Formulas for Success, Weidenfield and Nicolson, London.
Green, R.F., Lisboa, J. and Yasin, M.M. (1993), Porters (1980) generic strategies in Portugal,
European Business Review, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 3-10.
Gupta, A. (1995), A stakeholder analysis approach for interorganizational systems, Industrial
Management and Stat Systems, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 3-7.
Hall, W.K. (1983), Survival in a hostile environment, in Hammermesh, R.G. (Ed.), Strategic
Management, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 151-69.
Hambrick, D.C. (1981), Strategic awareness within top management teams, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 263-79.
Hambrick, D.C. (1982), Environmental scanning and organizational strategy, Strategic
Hambrick, D.C. (1983), Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of miles and
snows strategic types, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Hawes, J.M. and Crittendon, W.F. (1984), A taxonomy of competitive retailing strategies,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 275-87.
Helms, M.M., Clay, D. and Peter, W. (1997), Competitive strategies and business performance:
evidence from the adhesives and sealants industry, Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 9,
pp. 689-703.
Hill, C.W.L. (1988), Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost: a contingency
framework, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 401-12.
Hlavacka, S., Ljuba, B., Viera, R. and Robert, W. (2001), Performance implications of Porters
generic strategies in Slovak hospitals, Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 44-66.
Hooley, G.I. and Lynch, J.E. (1985), Marketing lessons from the UKs high-flying companies,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 1, pp. 65-74.
Hyatt, L. (2001), A simple guide to strategy, Nursing Homes, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 12-3.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1993), Exploring Corporate Strategy, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall
International, Hemel Hempstead.
Jones, G.R. and Butler, J.E. (1988), Costs, revenue, and business-level strategy, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 202-13.
Karnani, A. (1984), Generic competitive strategies: an analytical approach, Strategic
Kim, L. and Lim, Y. (1988), Environment, generic strategies, and performance in a rapidly
developing country: a taxonomic approach, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31,
pp. 802-27.
Kippenberger, T. (1996), A strong focus at Amoco UK, The Antinode, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 22-4.
Kropf, R. and Szafran, A.J. (1988), Developing a competitive advantage in the market for
radiology services, Hospital and Health Services Administration, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 213-20.
Kumar, K., Subramanian, R. and Yauger, C. (1997), Pure versus hybrid: performance
implications of porters generic strategies, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 47-60.
Linking strategic
practices
451
BPMJ
12,4
452
Liff, S., He, J. and Steward, F. (1993), Technology content and competitive advantage: strategic
analysis on the steel processing and watch manufacturing sectors in the Peoples Republic
of China, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8 Nos 3-5, pp. 309-32.
Littler, D. (1988), Perspectives on competitiveness, Marketing Education Group Proceedings of
the 21st Annual Conference, Huddersfield Polytechnic,Vol. 3, pp. 57-72.
Lusch, R.F. and Laczniak, G.R. (1989), Macro-environmental forces, marketing strategy and
business performance: a futures approach, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 17, pp. 283-95.
McCracken, L. (2002), Differentiation: win new business with less effort, Principals Report,
Vol. 2 No. 4, p. 1.
McGee, J. and Thomas, H. (1986), Strategic groups: theory, research and taxonomy, Strategic
McGee, J. and Thomas, H. (1992), Strategic groups and intra-industry competition,
International Review of Strategic Management, Vol. 3, pp. 77-98.
McNamee, P. and McHugh, M. (1989), Competitive strategies in the clothing industry, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 63-71.
Malburg, C. (2000), Competing on costs, Industry Week, Vol. 249 No. 17, p. 31.
Martin, R. (1999), The new geographical turn in economics: some critical reflections,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Mason, E.S. (1939), Price and production policies of large-scale enterprises, American Economic
Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Mathur, S.S. (1988), How firms compete: a new classification of generic strategies, Journal of
General Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 30-60.
Median, A. and Chin, A.C. (1995), Mortgage-pricing determinants: a comparative investigation
of national regional and local building societies, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 3-11.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Miller, A. and Dess, G. (1993), Assessing Porters (1980) model in terms of its generalizability,
accuracy, and simplicity, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30, pp. 553-85.
Miller, A. (1998), Strategic Management, 3rd ed., Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Miller, D. (1992), The generic strategy trap, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 37-42.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1986), Porters (1980) generic strategies and performance: an
empirical examination with American data. Part I: testing porter, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 37-55.
Murdoch, A. (1999), Future indicative?, Accountancy, Vol. 123 No. 1270, pp. 48-9.
Murray, A.I. (1988), A contingency view of Porters generic strategies, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 390-400.
Nayyar, P.R. (1993), On the measurement of competitive strategy: evidence from a large
multiproduct US firm, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1652-69.
Niemira, M.P. (2000), Can Japan compete?, Barrons, Vol. 80 No. 49, pp. 57-8.
Parker, B. and Helms, M.M. (1992), Generic strategies and firm performance in a declining
industry, Management International Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 23-9.
Phillips, L.W., Chang, D.R. and Buzzell, R.D. (1983), Product quality, cost position, and business
performance: a test of some key hypotheses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 26-43.
Porter, M. (1979), How competitive forces shape strategy, Harvard Business Review,
March/April, pp. 137-45.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M. (1987), From competitive advantage to corporate strategy, Harvard Business Review,
May/June, pp. 43-59.
Porter, M. (1996), What is strategy?, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 61-78.
Rajecki, R. (2002), Whats your brand, Contracting Business, Vol. 59 No. 3, p. 40.
Reilly, T. (2002), Be a champion of the solution, Industrial Distribution, Vol. 91 No. 5, p. 62.
Reitsperger, W.D., Daniel, S.J., Tallman, S.B., Parker, B. and Chismar, W.G. (1993), Product
quality and cost leadership: compatible strategies?, Management International Review,
Vol. 33, pp. 7-21.
Richardson, O. and Dennis, C. (2003), UK vineyards sector case study: analysis of retail
activities using exemplar strategic marketing tools, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 9,
p. 634.
Ross, D.N. (1999), Culture as a context for multinational business: a framework for assessing the
strategy-culture fit, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 13-9.
Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (1985), In search of excellence in the UK, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 119-37.
Seth, A. and Thomas, H. (1994), Theories of the firm: implications for strategy research, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 165-91.
Slocum, J.W. Jr, McGill, M. and Lei, D.T. (1994), The new learning strategy: anytime, anything,
anywhere, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 33-47.
Spanos, Y.E., Zaralis, G. and Lioukas, S. (2004), Strategy and industry effects on profitability:
evidence from Greece, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, p. 139.
Stone, M. (1995), Strategic development related to Europeanization of UK logistics and
distribution service suppliers, European Business Review, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 9-14.
Surowiecki, J. (1999), The return of Michael Porter, Fortune, Vol. 139 No. 2, pp. 135-8.
Suutari, R. (1999), Tale of two strategies, CMA Management, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 12-13.
Sy, D. (2002), The view from Taft, Businessworld, Vol. 2, p. 1.
Thompson, A. and Strickland, A. (1998), Crafting and Implementing Strategy, Irwin
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Troy, M. (2002), Below the surface lies a discount core, DSN Retailing Today, Vol. 41 No. 7, p. 57.
Tuminello, R. (2002), The psychology of client selection, Northwest Construction, Vol. 5 No. 2,
p. 14.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Ferry, D.L. (1980), Measuring and Assessing Organizations, Wiley, New
York, NY, p. 19.
Van Raaij, W.F. and Verhallen, T.M.M. (1994), Domain specific market segmentation,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 49-66.
Venu, S. (2001), India: competitive advantage: alternative scenarios, Businessline, Vol. 12, p. 1.
Walker, O.C. Jr and Ruekert, R.W. (1987), Marketings role in the implementation of business
strategies: a critical review and conceptual framework, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51,
pp. 15-33.
Linking strategic
practices
453
BPMJ
12,4
454
White, R.E. (1986), Generic business strategies, organizational context, and performance: an
empirical investigation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 217-31.
Wright, P. (1987), A refinement of Porters strategies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 93-101.
Wright, P. and Parsinia, A. (1988), Porters synthesis of generic business strategies: a critique,
Industrial Management, May/June, pp. 20-3.
Wright, P., Kroll, M., Tu, H. and Helms, M. (1991), Generic strategies and business performance:
an empirical study of the screw machine products industry, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 2, I, pp. 57-65.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: a
taxonomic approach, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Further reading
Hammonds, K.H. (2001), Michael Porters big ideas, Fast Company, August 20, pp. 150-6.
Hodgetts, R.M. (1999), A conversation with Michael E. Porter: a significant extension toward
operational improvement and positioning, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 24-33.
Hoskisson, R.E. (1999), Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum,
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 417-56.
Miller, A. and Dess, G. (1993), Assessing Porters (1980) model in terms of its generalizability,
accuracy, and simplicity, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 553-85.
Parnell, J.A. and Wright, P. (1993), Generic strategy and performance: an empirical test of the
miles and snow typology, British Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Porter, M.E. (1973), Retailer power, manufacturer strategy and performance in consumer goods
industries, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Porter, M.E. (1981), The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 609-20.
Pretzlik, C. (1999), Caradon pledges drive to safeguard profits, Financial Times, March 10, p. 43.
Prior, M. (2002), Image is the key to differentiation, DSN Retailing Today, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 54ff.
Radical internet stirs up retailing (1997), Radical internet stirs up retailing, Facilities, Vol. 15
No. 11, pp. 263-4.
About the authors
Richard S. Allen is the UC Foundation Associate Professor of management at the University of
Tennessee at Chattanooga. He earned his PhD from the University of Pittsburgh. His research
interests include the strategic use of reward practices, motivation and diversity. Rich Allen is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: Rich-Allen@utc.edu
Marilyn M. Helms is the Sesquicentennial Endowed Chair and Professor of Management at
Dalton State College. She holds a Doctorate Degree from the University of Memphis. Her research
interests include manufacturing strategy, quality, and international management. E-mail:
mhelms@em.daltonstate.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. VeraJorge Jorge Vera Jorge Vera holds a PhD in Management Sciences, with honours, from the National
University of Mexico (UNAM). Previously, he obtained an MBA at the Technological Institute of Mexico
(ITAM). As an undergraduate, he studied experimental psychology at the National University of Mexico.
He has professional experience as a marketing research advisor. Currently, Jorge Vera is a Research
Professor of the Technological of Monterrey Business School in Mexico City Campus. He imparts subjects
such as marketing research, strategic marketing and brand management. Since 2006, he is Member of
the Researchers National System of Mexicos National Science and Technology Council. Tecnolgico de
Monterrey, Mexico City, Mexico, USA . 2016. Two paths to customer loyalty: the moderating effect of
the differentiation level strategy in the performance-satisfaction-value-intentions relationship. Journal of
Product & Brand Management 25:2, 171-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Pekka Stenholm, Tommi Pukkinen, Jarna Heinonen. 2016. Firm Growth in Family Businesses-The Role
of Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Entrepreneurial Activity. Journal of Small Business Management
54:2, 697-713. [CrossRef]
3. Patti Millar, Alison Doherty. 2016. Capacity building in nonprofit sport organizations: Development of
a process model. Sport Management Review . [CrossRef]
4. John A Parnell School of Humanities & Economic Management, China University of Geosciences
(Beijing), Beijing, China, AND, School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina
- Pembroke, Pembroke, North Carolina, USA Zhang Long School of Humanities & Economic
Management, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, China Don Lester Jennings. A.
Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA . 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. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, Joo V. Lisboa, Michael H. Small. 2014. Discerning competitive
strategy through an assessment of competitive methods. The Service Industries Journal 34:12, 974-998.
[CrossRef]
6. Paul Tansey, John P. Spillane, Xianhai Meng. 2014. Linking response strategies adopted by construction
firms during the 2007 economic recession to Porters generic strategies. Construction Management and
Economics 32:7-8, 705-724. [CrossRef]
7. Nor Azlina Ab Rahman, Aliza Ramli. 2014. Entrepreneurship Management, Competitive Advantage and
Firm Performances in the Craft Industry: Concepts and Framework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 145, 129-137. [CrossRef]
8. Rajiv D. Banker The Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Raj
Mashruwala Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Arindam Tripathy
Milgard School of Business, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington, USA . 2014.
Does a differentiation strategy lead to more sustainable financial performance than a cost leadership
strategy?. Management Decision 52:5, 872-896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Mehmet Ali Kseoglu, Cafer Topaloglu, John A. Parnell, Donald L. Lester. 2013. Linkages among
business strategy, uncertainty and performance in the hospitality industry: Evidence from an emerging
economy. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34, 81-91. [CrossRef]
10. Somayeh Zamani, John A. Parnell, Hassan Labbaf, Nicholas O'Regan. 2013. Strategic Change and
Decision Making in an Emerging Nation: An Exploratory Assessment of Iranian Manufacturing Firms.
Strategic Change 22:5-6, 355-370. [CrossRef]
11. Luciana Aparecida Barbieri da Rosa, Jordana Marques Kneipp, Roberto Schoproni Bichueti, Clandia
Maffi ni Gomes, Joo Fernando Zamberlan. 2013. The Innovation Process and the Development of a
Sustainability Strategy. Latin American Business Review 14:3-4, 289-308. [CrossRef]
12. Vinay K. Garg, Richard L. Priem, Abdul A. Rasheed. 2013. A Theoretical Explanation of the Cost
Advantages of Multi-unit Franchising. Journal of Marketing Channels 20:1-2, 52-72. [CrossRef]
13. Luliya TeeratansirikoolSchool of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
and Faculty of Liberal Art and Management Science, Prince of Songkla University, Surat Thani, Thailand
Sununta SiengthaiSchool of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
Yuosre BadirSchool of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand Chotchai
CharoenngamSchool of Engineering and Technology, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani,
Thailand. 2013. Competitive strategies and firm performance: the mediating role of performance
measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:2, 168-184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Bernard J. Kornfeld, Sami Kara. 2013. A Framework for Developing Portfolios of Improvements Projects
in Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 7, 377-382. [CrossRef]
15. JEEN WEI ONG, HISHAMUDDIN BIN ISMAIL. 2012. ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAITS AND
FIRM SERENDIPITY-SEEKING ON SMES' PERFORMANCE: THE EFFECT OF FIRM SIZE.
Journal of Enterprising Culture 20:03, 265-286. [CrossRef]
16. Jian-hua Xiao, Ya-nan Li, Yu-ying NiuDo research organizations have generic strategies?: Cases from
China 1680-1685. [CrossRef]
17. Shan LiDepartment of Civil and Architectural Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon,
Hong Kong Florence Y.Y. LingBuilding Department, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 2012.
Critical strategies for Chinese architectural, engineering and construction firms to achieve profitability.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 19:5, 495-511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Chetan S. Sankar. 2012. Factors that Improve ERP Implementation Strategies in an Organization.
International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems 6:2, 15-34. [CrossRef]
19. John O. Okpara. 2012. An exploratory study of international strategic choices for exporting firms in
Nigeria. Thunderbird International Business Review 54:4, 479-491. [CrossRef]
20. Florence Y.Y. Ling, Shan Li, Sui Pheng Low, George Ofori. 2012. Mathematical models for predicting
Chinese A/E/C firms' competitiveness. Automation in Construction 24, 40-51. [CrossRef]
21. John A. ParnellSchool of Business Administration, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, Pembroke,
North Carolina, USA Donald L. LesterJennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee
State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA Zhang LongSchool of Humanity and Management,
China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, China Mehmet Ali KseogluFaculty of Economics
and Administrative Sciences, Cankr Karatekin University, Cankr, Turkey. 2012. How environmental
uncertainty affects the link between business strategy and performance in SMEs. Management Decision
50:4, 546-568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supplemental Material]
22. John A. Parnell, Mehmet Ali Koseoglu, Zhang Long, John E. Spillan. 2012. Competitive Strategy,
Uncertainty, and Performance: An Exploratory Assessment of China and Turkey. Journal of Transnational
Management 17:2, 91-117. [CrossRef]
23. Benedikte Borgstrm, Susanne Hertz. 2011. Supply Chain Strategies: Changes in Customer Order-Based
Production. Journal of Business Logistics 32:4, 361-373. [CrossRef]
24. A. George Assaf, Carlos Barros, Ricardo Sellers-Rubio. 2011. Efficiency determinants in retail stores: a
Bayesian framework. Omega 39:3, 283-292. [CrossRef]
25. Nikzad Manteghi, Abazar Zohrabi. 2011. A proposed comprehensive framework for formulating strategy:
a Hybrid of balanced scorecard, SWOT analysis, porters generic strategies and Fuzzy quality function
deployment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 15, 2068-2073. [CrossRef]
26. Enrique Claver-Corts, Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega, Jos Francisco Molina-Azorn. 2011. Estructura
organizativa y resultado empresarial: un anlisis emprico del papel mediador de la estrategia. Cuadernos
de Economa y Direccin de la Empresa 14:1, 2-13. [CrossRef]
27. John A. ParnellSchool of Business Administration, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, Pembroke,
North Carolina, USA. 2010. Strategic clarity, business strategy and performance. Journal of Strategy and
Management 3:4, 304-324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Eli Noy. 2010. Niche strategy: merging economic and marketing theories with population ecology
arguments. Journal of Strategic Marketing 18:1, 77-86. [CrossRef]
29. Ovidiu N. Bordean, Anca I. Borza, Rzvan L. Nistor, Ctlina S. Mitra. 2010. The Use of Michael Porters
Generic Strategies in the Romanian Hotel Industry. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance
1:2, 173-178. [CrossRef]
30. Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega, Jos F. Molina-Azorn, Enrique Claver-Corts. 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. [CrossRef]
31. Audhesh Paswan, Derrick D'Souza, Mohammad Ali Zolfagharian. 2009. Toward a Contextually Anchored
Service Innovation Typology. Decision Sciences 40:3, 513-540. [CrossRef]
32. Rafael PaimProduction Engineering Department, Rio de Janeiro Federal University Rio de Janeiro Federal
Technology Education Center, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Heitor Mansur CaullirauxIndustrial Engineering
Department and Production Engineering Program, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil Rodolfo CardosoProduction Engineering Program, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. 2008. Process management tasks: a conceptual and practical view. Business Process
Management Journal 14:5, 694-723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Eva M. PertusaOrtega Jos F. MolinaAzorn Enrique ClaverCorts. 2008. A Comparative Analysis of
the Influence that Different Fit Perspectives Have On Firm Performance. Management Research: Journal
of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 6:2, 139-150. [Abstract] [PDF]
34. Omar RomeroHernndezCenter of Technology Development, Department of Industrial Engineering
and Operations, Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico Miguel de Lascurain
MorhanCenter of Technology Development, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations,
Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico David Muoz NegrnCenter of
Technology Development, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations, Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico Sergio Romero HernndezCenter of Technology
Development, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations, Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo
de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico David G. Muoz MedinaCenter of Technology Development,
Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations, Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico,
Mexico City, Mexico Arturo A. Palacios BrunCenter of Technology Development, Department of
Industrial Engineering and Operations, Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico
Manuel A. Oneto SuberbieCenter of Technology Development, Department of Industrial Engineering
and Operations, Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico Jose E. Detta
SilveiraCenter of Technology Development, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations,
Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico. 2008. Business process modelling for
a central securities depository. Business Process Management Journal 14:3, 419-431. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
35. Obasi AkanAssistant professor of management at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He earned
his PhD from the Case Western Reserve University. He has published articles on the role of conversation
in creating effective group and team performance. Richard S. AllenUniversity of Chattanooga Foundation
associate professor of management at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He earned his PhD
from the University of Pittsburgh. He has published numerous articles on the reward systems, motivation,
and strategy. Marilyn M. HelmsSesquicentennial Endowed Chair and professor of management at Dalton
State College. She holds a doctorate degree from the University of Memphis. She had published extensively
on the topics of strategy, quality, and international management. Samuel A. Spralls IIIAssistant professor
of marketing at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He earned his PhD at Texas Tech University.
His research interests include exploring ways that firms can realize the benefits of virtual integration..
2006. Critical tactics for implementing Porter's generic strategies. Journal of Business Strategy 27:1, 43-53.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Ute RiemannThe Power of Three: 74-94. [CrossRef]
37. Chetan SankarFactors that Improve ERP Implementation Strategies in an Organization 114-135.
[CrossRef]

Strategies Managment

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationcase study

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategies Managment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategies Managment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Process Management Journal

Linking strategic practices and organizational performance to Porter's generic strategies

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Linking strategic practices and

College of Business Administration,

Business Process Management

analysis and regression analysis supports a group of strategic practices linked to

The key step in devising a differentiation strategy is to determine what makes a

and reengineering activities. A low-cost or cost leadership strategy is effectively

Identifying organizational performance measures

Vigorous pursuit of cost reductions

(Average over three years)

Total revenue growth

framework of four generic organizational strategies. Factor 1 reasonably appears to

specialty products and service is by definition, the focus product differentiation

Analysis and results

Cost leadership scale

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Developing a broad range Tight control of

Notes: *b significant at the , 0.05 level; * *b significant at the , 0.01 level

organizations using this approach is the minimization of distribution costs. Nowhere is

of the chosen organizational strategy. The relationship between performance and

Areas for further research

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

This article has been cited by:

You might also like

Notes: p , 0.05; *p , 0.01

Notes: b significant at the , 0.05 level; *b significant at the , 0.01 level