혼합 전략(Hybrid Strategy)은 효과적인가? (Is Hybrid Competitive Strategy Working?)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국기업경영학회
· 수록지 정보 : 기업경영연구 / 22권 / 2호 / 65 ~ 86페이지
· 저자명 : 임성준, 박종경

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음