본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

혼합 전략(Hybrid Strategy)은 효과적인가?

Is Hybrid Competitive Strategy Working?

박종경|임성준
한국기업경영학회 (Korean Corporation Management Association)|2015.04|기업경영연구 (Korean Corporation Management Review)|제22권 제2호|pp. 65-86

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

기업성과Firm Performance경쟁전략Competitive Strategy환경의 불확실성Environmental Uncertainty혼합 전략어중간한 상태Hybrid StrategyStuck in the Middle
주제분류경영학

초록

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

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the performance implication of the hybrid competitive strategy which combines differentiation and cost leadership elements in comparison to Porter’s traditional pure competitive strategies(a differentiation strategy and a low cost strategy), especially under highly uncertain environment. Porter(1985) argued that there are two generic types of competitive advantage a firm can develop in order to achieve better performance, namely, low cost and differentiation. These two types of competitive advantage which a firm seeks to achieve lead two generic competitive strategies; cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy. Porter argued against the simultaneous pursuit of cost leadership and differentiation strategies since he believed that each of them requires a different set of resources and organizational arrangements. However, other researchers suggest that some firms could successfully pursue hybrid competitive strategies which combine both low cost and differentiation elements(Hall, 1980; Hambrick, 1983; Dess & Davis, 1984; White, 1986; Kim & Lim, 1988; Dawes & Sharp, 1996; Gopalakrishna & Subramanian, 2001; Spanos, Zaralis & Lioukas, 2004). Some researchers explain that achieving a strong position in one of two strategies may actually improve the position in the other strategy(Miller & Friesen, 1986; Hill, 1988; Miller, 1992). Another researchers argue that certain recently developed management practice like quality management and information and communication technology may help firms to achieve strong positions in both strategies(Belohlav, 1993; Wright et al., 1994; Grant, 2002; Bayo-Moriones & Lera-Lopez, 2007). Moreover, some researchers suggest that hybrid competitive strategy is not only viable but also like to be related with better performance than Porter’s traditional pure strategies. This is because pursuing pure strategies may leave gaps in product offerings and customer needs due to strategic specialization. Researchers suggest that the competitive advantage of firms with pure strategy may be more vulnerable to competitors’ imitation than that of firms with hybrid strategy. Hybrid strategy may also be more effective for adapting to changing environment than pure strategy by having both types of competitive advantages(Pertusa-Ortega et. al., 2009; Beal & Yasai-Ardekani, 2000; Miller, 1992; Booth & Philip, 1998). Based on these arguments, we suggest the following Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1: Firms with hybrid strategies will have better performance than firms with other competitive strategies. Strategic contingency theory argues that relationships between strategy and firm performance could be a function of environmental characteristics(Hambrick, 1983; Hrebiniak & Joyce, 1985; Miller, 1988; 1991). Previous research suggest that hybrid strategies are more effective under uncertain environment because pure strategy which produces only one type of competitive advantage may not be enough for a firm to adapt and evolve to a changing environment if it is highly uncertain(Kim, Nam & Stimpert, 2004; Pertusa-Ortega, et. al., 2009). Thus we suggest the following Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2: The performance difference between firms with hybrid strategy and firms with other strategies will be greater under uncertain environment. In order to test these hypotheses empirical analyses were carried out over a multi-sectorial sample of 962 Korean firms. The sample of this study which is composed of 962 firms from 28 industrial sectors is significantly larger and diversified in comparison to previous empirical studies, thus improves the generalizability of results. Findings of empirical analyses are as follows. First, supporting Hypothesis 1, firms with hybrid strategy indeed have significantly higher performance than firms with pure strategies or without a clear strategy(‘stuck in the middle’). Second, supporting Hypothesis 2, relatively superior performance of firms with hybrid strategy is more evident in highly uncertain environment than otherwise, suggesting a moderating effect of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between hybrid strategy and firm performance. Results of this study may imply that we need to consider the concept of ambidexeterity in competitive strategies in order to cope with increasing environmental uncertainty.

참고문헌 (80)

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

관련 논문AI추천

우월한 기업성과를 위한 전제조건으로서의 전략 선택에 관한 실증적 연구; 다면적 기업성과 및 산업분석김훈, 고인곤한국상업경영학회 · 상업경영연구2007 · 제17권 기업의 경쟁전략과 시장지향성, 재무적 성과와의 영향 관계에서 양손잡이 전략의 조절효과유기현, 최수용산업개발연구소 · 산업혁신연구2024 · 제40권 제4호기업경쟁력 강화를 위한 탐색적 연구 : 기업(사업)전략과 생산전략, 그리고 기업성과의 관계 중심으로전영일한국생산관리학회 · 한국생산관리학회지2007 · 제18권 제1호경영환경, 경쟁전략 및 기업 내부역량 간의 적합성이 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구유정민, 임성준, 추승엽한국전략경영학회 · 전략경영연구2009 · 제12권 제1호환경불확실성과 경쟁전략의 적합성이 중소기업의 성과에 미치는 영향신진교, 여경환, 이상원한국중소기업학회 · 중소기업연구2022 · 제44권 제4호국내 제조업체의 전략적 유연성, 경쟁우위, 성과 간의 관계 : 조정메카니즘의 조절영향을 중심으로양영익한국전략마케팅학회 · 마케팅논집(Journal of Marketing Studies)2016 · 제24권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

일-가정 갈등 및 향상 요인의 효과성과 긍정심리자본의 조절 역할박상언, 이혜진pp. 1-22관계특유투자 및 관계자본이 관계학습 및 만족, 장기지향성에 미치는 영향: 대기업과 중소기업 간의 관계를 중심으로이명성, 이성호pp. 23-42시장성과가 경영자교체에 미치는 영향신범철, 신지숙, 이해영pp. 43-63직무요구 및 직무통제가 일-가정 갈등, 직무탈진 및 이직의도에 미치는 영향심덕섭, 양동민pp. 87-108고성과자와 저성과자의 이직의도: 전반적 조직공정성 지각의 역할권기욱pp. 109-129
원문 보기