Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
WAR 18
SA
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
February 1987
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
1987
Venkatraraan
February 1987
MAR 1 9
'1987
R5C!VS0
i
Howard Thomas
N.
Venkatraman
February 1987
all
Both authors contributed about equally to the discussion. Address
MIT,
Management,
of
School
correspondence to: N. Venkatraman, E52-553 Sloan
Cambridge, MA. 02139. Phone (617)-253-5044.
-2-
ABSTRACT
management. A classi
-3-
Strategic management is
In
addition,
it draws
1981);
These include:
industrial
1983;
1983;
Meyers,
1984).
Somewhat
Such
multi-disciplinary orientation
is
healthy and appropriate for the growth and development of the strategic
key to success
lies in the ability to adapt the concepts from the parent di scipl ine(s) to the
Since
concepts derive their meaning through their specific definition, use, and
operational izations, their transferability is
task.
In
1980;
1986;
Porter,
potential
envisaged
in
The purpose of this paper is to review the progress made in the strategic
groups literature and identify important issues and research directions from
-4-
strategic
groups as an
"A group of
integration,
p. 8).
definition,
there does not seem to be any uniformity in the treatment of strategic groups
in empirical
research settings.
recognizing that this is an important research stream, this paper aims to:
develop
(a)
strategic groups;
management perspective.
and (c)
a
strategic
-5-
number of conceptual and empirical papers that are grounded in this theme (see
McGee & Thomas,
1986).
In the absence of
paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly
p. 15).
Hence, a
research.
A Two-Dimensional Scheme
We propose
on
strategy;
and (b) the approach adopted for the development of groups. The
The choice of the first dimension reflects our belief that the
If the aim is
in
strategy continues to be
However,
-6-
Ginsberg,
1984;
Hambrick,
1980;
and there does not seem to be any consensus about how we should classify
1986);
Hence,
in viewing this
distinction
parallels the notion of the "parts" versus the "holistic" view of Hambrick
(1980) and is analogous to the general distinction between "unidimensional"
unlikely to reflect the complexity of the strategy construct, thus limiting the
group
priori
In contrast,
based on empirical
results on
posteriori
limitations.
Both
strengths, and
the meani ngf ul ness of the group structure and for deriving insights for theory
-7-
developed in Figure
1.
empirically: Type
I;
(b)
using
11;
strategy:
and (d)
Type IV.
Insert Figure
About Here
review the empirical research and uncover important summary patterns that can
be subsequently used to suggest future directions.
As noted earlier,
In
this
dimension, the details of the operational ization scheme are presented to assess
the approaches and the diversity of strategy constructs adopted by researchers
to define strategy within the context of developing grouping schemes.
The aim
-8-
is to
insights.
single
it could perhaps be a
Performance
review framework.
concerned with the identification and description of the groups per se from
those studies that focus on the implications of these groups for some other
implications,
it
is
in
other words,
then they
-9-
Data-analytlc Scheme
The use of
The review based on the above set of dimensions, and organized around the
four types identified using Figure
1,
is summarized
Insert Table
in
Table
1.
about Here
Observations
We summarize the major patterns below, while urging readers to derive
1.
1985),
given
studies have
II
is
1985),
1983).
The
10-
particular industry,
identify
obtain
set of groupings,
studies
view
that firms differ in their strategies but not to an extent that all are so
view.
1978;
Porter,
Indeed, the
"industry".
economists (Chamberlain,
in
1951;
Robinson,
1966;
Scherer,
1980).
Yet even
several
However,
if strategic
-11-
1980;
Bourgeois,
1980),
variations.
technology (Abell,
resources of production and other inputs), process (technology) and the more
conventional notion of output-based competition. Hence,
limiting one's
In this context,
for strategic groups analysis has mainly been restricted to those that are
As an example,
the
Similar advantages exist in the other industries studied (e.g., brewing, office
equipment,
types", which begins to reflect the notion of competition across groups. This
can be seen in the recent attempts to identify groups of firms (or businesses)
that are following "similar" strategies but are situated in environments that
cut across the boundaries of industries.
In
-12-
homogeneous
theory
1984;
groups.
some studies,
In
instance. Porter,
Schendel,
1977;
1979),
1983).
Thus,
one can not meaningfully compare and aggregate the results across
different studies.
In
common
theme of operational izing strategy (such as Porter's generic types or Miles and
Snow's types;
it
From
i.e.,
in
such
-13-
way that establishes that groups are internally homogeneous and maximally
characteristics are: (a) each group is composed of firms (or, businesses) that
follow similar strategies;
threat).
group are
However, no
statistical
homogeneity, at best.
extraneous criterion.
is that of performance.
of view.
performance, the results can be taken as supportive of the view that "generic"
strategies that have equal performance effects are operative, and thus
In addition,
this
14-
broader
While,
is
it
encouraging to see
1985;
Fiegenbaum,
1986),
trend
1984) as
researchers
service versus
manufacturing sectors).
Suggested Directions
utility.
Given that the demonstration of the heterogeneous nature of industry is not the
prime focus, one should have reasons for expecting groupings. Thus, the focus
should be on deductive theorizing about the number of groups as well as their
set of groups.
This
15-
1985),
evaluating
If this
is
this
existence of groups at
over time.
in
-16-
functional
level
1972;
Newman,
1978;
Porter,
1979) or
1983).
single
reflect the interrelationships among the functional strategies rather than the
individual
functional
strategies per
se.
enough to
reflect the complexities of the construct. Good examples are given by Cool
(1985),
It is well
accepted
McKelvey's (1978) call for the development of organization types using multiple
dimensions, Hambrick's (1984) as well as Miller and Friesen's (1984) call for
the development of strategy gestalts;
17-
richer
Important initial
contributions have been made by Dess and Davis (1984), Porac, Thomas, and Emme
(1985),
and Fombrun and Zajac (1987). An important referent for this stream of
research is whether the groups make sense to the managers competing in that
industry, or more generally, the product-market arena.
It could well
be that an
II
In
(see Kelly,
1955;
Porac et.al.,
1985).
In
such an approach,
The dimensions
can be derived from the analysis and could provide an entirely different
18-
In the
set of important
the concept of
strategic
In
that can be addressed using the generalized concept of strategic groups are:
(a) determinants of grouping structure
grouping structure
(b)
stabi
ity of
criteria for designing future studies rooted in this topic and from
management perspective.
useful
referent.
strategic
-19-
1.
that has routinely served to demarcate the sample domain in previous studies
the
For instance,
2.
(a)
marketplace (i.e., key success factors that form the basis for effective
strategy development and which can be confirmed by
experts);
panel
of industry
would serve to enhance the usefulness of strategic groups for theory building.
3.
Theoretical Anchors
We do not advocate
However,
as well
In
the
-20-
4.
Data-analytic Issues
it is
important to be particularly
sensitive to the issues such as the number of clusters, and the need to
5.
Interpretation of Groups
observers;
namely the
6.
it is
1986 for
Here,
-21-
this area.
CONCLUSIONS
in
research from
set
-22-
References
Defining the business:
Starting Point of Strategic
D. F. (1980)
Prentice-Hall.
Planning
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Englewood Cliffs,
Aldrich, H. E. (1979) Organizations and environments
NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Andrews, K.R. (1980) The concept of corporate strategy Homewood, 111,
Richard D. Irwin.
Cambridge, Mass.:
Bain, J. S. (1956) Barriers to new competition
Harvard University Press.
Strategic groups:
A three mode
Baird, I. S., & Sudharshan, D. (1983)
Working Paper 931,
factor analysis of some measures of financial risk.
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Bettis, R. A. (1983) Modern financial theory, corporate strategy, and
Three conundrums.
Academy of Management Review 8,
public policy:
406-415.
Biggadike, E. R. (1981) The contributions of marketing to strategic
management.
Academy of Management Review 6, 621-632.
From entry barriers to mobility
& Porter, M. E. (1977)
Caves, R. E.
barriers.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 91, 241-261.
Intra-industry differences in conduct
& Pugel, T. (1980)
Caves, R. E.
Viable strategies in U.S. manufacturing industries New
and performance:
York University monograph.
Chamberlin, E.H. (1951) Monopolistic competition revisited, Economica
343-362.
Cool, K. (1985) Strategic group formation and strategic group shifts:
A longitudinal analysis of the US pharmaceutical industry, 1963-82
Ph.D Dissertation, Purdue University.
Porter's (1980) generic strategies as
Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984)
determinants of strategic group membership and organizational
performance.
Academy of Management Journal
27, 467-488.
Fiegenbaum, A. (1986) Dynamic aspects of strategic groups and competitive
Strategy: Concepts and empirical examination in the insurance
industry. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Business definition and
Frazier, G. L.
& Howell, R. D. (1983)
performance.
Journal of Marketing 47, 59-67.
Structural and perceptual influences on
Fombrun, C. & Zajac, E. (1987)
Academy of Management Journal
intraindustry stratification.
(forthcoming)
Toward an
Ginsberg, A. (1984) Operationalizing organizational strategy:
Academy of Management Review 9, 548-557.
integrative framework.
Hambrick, D. C. (1980) Operationalizing the concept of business-level
strategy in research.
Academy of Management Review 5, 567-575.
Hambrick, D. C. (1983) An empirical typology of mature industrial-product
26, 213-230.
environments.
Academy of Management Journal
Some
Hambrick, D. C. (1984) Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy:
Journal of Management 10, 27-41.
conceptual and methodological issues.
Harrigan, K. R. (1980)
Lexington,
Strategies for declining business
Mass.
Heath
D. C.
& Co.
Harrigan, K. R. (1985) An application of clustering for strategic group
analysis.
Strategic Management Journal
6, 55-73.
Abell,
-23-
-24-
Oster,
Urbana-Champaign.
The structure within industries and companies'
Porter, M. E. (1979)
performance.
Review of Economics and Statistics 61, 214-219.
New York:
The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive strategy
Porter, M. E. (1981) The contributions of industrial organization to
Academy of Management Review 6, 609-620.
strategic management.
Free
Cases in competitive strategy New York:
Porter, M. E. (1982)
Press.
Primeaux, W. J. (1983) The interdependence of the life cycle and
strategic group concepts:
Theory and evidence.
Faculty Working Paper
961, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Illinois at
,
Urbana-Champaign.
Primeaux, W. J. (1985) A method for determining strategic groups and life
Strategic
stages of an industry.
In H. Thomas & D. M. Gardner (Eds.).
Chichester:
John Wiley.
marketing and management
Strategic groups and foreign market entry in global
Ramsler, M. (1982)
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard
banking competition.
University.
Robinson, J. (1956) The industry and the market. Economic Journal
66, 360-361.
Paper
Towards a strategic theory of the firm.
Rumelt, R. (1981)
presented at the Conference on Non-traditional Approaches to Policy
(Also
Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
reprinted in R. Lamb (Ed.) (1984) Competitive strategic management
Prentice-Hall).
Englewood Cliffs:
Security returns as a basis for
Ryans, A. B., & Wittink, D. R. (1985)
In H. Thomas & D.
estimating the competitive structure in an industry.
Chichester and
Strategic marketing and management
M. Gardner (Eds.).
John Wi ley.
New York:
A
Strategic management:
Schendel, D. E., & Hofer, C. W. (Eds.) (1979)
Boston:
Little, Brown & Co.
new view of business policy and planning
A simultaneous eguation model of
Schendel, D. E.
& Patton, G. R. (1978)
Management Science 24, 1611-1621.
corporate strategy.
Industrial market structure and economic
Scherer, F. M. (1980)
Rand McNally.
performance Chicago:
Venkatraman, N., & Grant, J. H. (1986) Construct measurement in
Academy of
A critigue and proposal.
organizational strategy research:
Management Review 11, 71-87.
Venkatraman, N.
& Ramanujam, V. (1986) Measurement of business
performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches.
Academy of Management Review 11, 801-814.
.
-25-
Figure
1:
NARROW
("parts")
(unidimensional)
BROAD
("holistic")
(multidimensional)
Description.
A priori
-26-
cd
U
ea
e
o
.fi
VI
II
&
u
H
H
Q
M
00
z
O
o
o
2
W
cu
fe
J3
Vi tn
U
Tt
4J
-27-
-28-
0)
(0
l-i
3
C
4J
ta
TS
o
H
c
4->
OS
>
o
3
O
M
r-l
3
01
CO
C
0)
X.U
4J
CO
CO
10
01
t-i
00
>,
.H
IS
a
a
0)
y
a
0)
o.
cc:
la
CO
00 rH
--
H J3
CO
I
CO
01
(M
-H
I-l
I-l
Ol
(J
00
iJ
CO
? 3
-o
^1
c
01
CO
0)
ja
<o
U
CO
>
00
c
H
>,
00
o;
4-1
CO
4-)
^u
X
<a
u
C/3
c
CO
c c
01
0)
u-1
4-1
4J
CO
On
4J
4-1
CO
OJ
5C 33
4-1
3 n
.H 3
9 O T3
> C
H
i-l
to
-H H
<-i
^^
00 CO
0)
iH
4-1
IS
01
r-\
U
C
I-l
CO
01
r-(
00
-29-
* e
-30-
TDflD
ill