Strategy types of service firms: evidence from Greece

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to empirically examine different types of service firms, featuring strategy orientations and the performance of different emphases.

Design/methodology/approach

To answer the questions the paper raises, data of 80 Greek firms of the services sector are analysed with the help of factor analysis, cluster analysis and analysis of variance.

Findings

The findings reveal three types of firms pursuing different strategy orientations for dealing with competition (i.e. the hybridists: 44 firms, the confused strategists: 25 firms and the non‐strategists: 11 firms). Furthermore, they suggest that performance is dependent on these strategy types.

Research limitations/implications

The study provides new evidence outside the manufacturing industry and the US context, which dominates the literature. Nonetheless, further empirical research will help to generalise the findings within the services sector in Greece and/or comparable national contexts, especially within the European Union.

Practical implications

The empirical results highlight the discussion of pure vs hybrid forms of competitive advantage pursued by service firms operating at home. A message of the utmost importance for practitioners is that the hybrid form of competitive advantage, which places high emphasis on low cost, is the prevailing and the best‐performing strategic choice.

Originality/value

The study focuses on strategy types of firms to offer a view on the basis of competitive advantage within the services sector of a dynamic European Union member state. By excluding the well‐known pure and stuck‐in‐the‐middle alternatives, the evidence highlights the lack of a strategy and combined choices of strategic orientations, which differ in terms of performance. It appears that the dominant argument of strategic purity is not applicable to all firms in all countries.

Citation

Salavou, H. (2010), "Strategy types of service firms: evidence from Greece", Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 1033-1047. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011068752