Search results

The purpose of this paper is to improve the appreciation of the moderating role of competitive intensity on the relationship between low-cost strategy and firm performance of restaurants.

The study uses empirical data collected from 118 restaurants operators, Ghana. The effects of relationships and the interaction of low-cost strategy and competitive intensity were tested using regression analysis.

The findings indicate the existence of a significant positive relationship between low-cost strategy and firm performance. The effect of competitive strategy on firm performance was found to be partially significant. The findings revealed that competitive intensity does moderate the relationship between low-cost strategy and firm performance of restaurants.

Implications of the findings for restaurant operators suggest that effective application of low-cost strategy and monitoring and managing competitive intensity results in high performance.

This study contributes to the existing literature on low-cost strategy, competitive intensity and firm performance. More specifically, the interaction terms of low-cost strategy and competitive intensity have been explored in this study and can be used for further investigations.

Synthesizes the contributions of a number of scholars on competitive strategies. Discusses several imperfections in the literature. Submits three propositions for empirical testing in a fragmented industry ‐ the adhesives and sealants industry. The results of the investigation suggest that business units which compete with the low cost strategy and differentiation strategy have higher ROIs than enterprises which compete with low costs only or differentiation only. As a group, however, the high profit firms are not significantly larger in size than the groups of low profit companies studied. Thus, what is elaborated is that competing with both strategies may involve benefits that are not based on advantages of larger market shares and scale economies.

When managers set aspirations for their firms, they typically compare their own firms' performance to past aspirations as well as to the performance of social reference groups. The authors explore how firm generic strategy affects managers' adaptation of firm aspirations in response to feedback from three social reference groups that vary in terms of breadth (population average, strategic group, and one direct rival).

The authors propose that firm generic strategy (low-cost or differentiation) functions as an organizational information filter through with managers interpret performance feedback. The authors test for whether generic strategy has a moderating effect on the influence of performance feedback from social reference groups.

Based on a longitudinal sample of US airlines, the study shows that all firms are influenced most strongly by their strategic groups. Low-cost and differentiation generic strategies differ in terms of which social reference group motivates a larger reaction when overperforming: low-cost firms are more influenced by the population average which is contributed to by the entire industry than are differentiating firms, while differentiating firms are more swayed by the narrow focus of their direct rivals than are low-cost firms.

Although firm strategy represents a core decision at the firm level, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, performance feedback research, surprisingly, has not yet integrated generic strategy into its models.

In this article which is based on a marketing analysis of Michael Porter′s definition of competitive strategies, the confusion present in marketing and strategic management texts as to the definitions of the three strategies of low cost, differentiation and focus is noted. The idea that using price to differentiate means a firm is using a low cost strategy is dismissed and the value of a definition of focus strategy as merely some degree of extreme differentiation is questioned. New definitions of the three strategies are proposed which are based upon the idea that firms react to, and take actions which influence, the structure of the market in which they operate. They influence market structure through determining the market′s proximity level ‐the minimum level of marketplace performance which a firm must reach in order to compete across the broad marketplace. If a firm has the ability to reach this level and go further to excel in the provision of one or more benefits, it can implement a differentiation strategy. Alternatively, it can attempt to lift the market′s proximity level or partake in imitative activity, which reduces the potential bases for differentiation in the market, a low cost strategy (only sensible for the firm with the lowest costs of production). If a firm lacks the ability to reach the proximity level, it must seek segments which do not require reaching proximity in order to serve them, a focus strategy.

Investigates the relationship between competitive strategies and business performance in the retailing industry and provides an empirical investigation of strategic approaches to competitive success adopted by various groups of retailers. In the past, examinations of this relationship have focused on samples from the industrial sector and have not investigated samples in the retail sector. Findings indicate that, both in terms of financial performance and operating performance, the group of retailers employing a combination of low‐cost/ differentiation strategy to attain competitive advantage outperform those using a singular strategic approach.

Popularity of the resource‐based theory of the firm has brought renewed interest in internal organisational domain as an important contributing factor toward organisational success. Generally, this research has taken the perspective that a direct link exists between internal domain and performance. An underlying premise of this view is that competitive direction is simply a reflection of the parameters of this domain. This study investigates the strength and direction of the link between internal domain and competitive direction to determine the significance of this assertion.

This paper aims to explore the effect of business strategy on socially responsible supply chain management (SR‐SCM).

This study draws on data from 178 UK‐based companies, and 340 buyer‐supplier relationships. A novel data collection approach is used, which minimizes social desirability and common methods bias, to capture socially responsible supply chain management. The data are analysed through a set of OLS regressions.

Business strategies significantly influence socially responsible supply chain management. Low‐cost producers largely neglect their social responsibilities in the supply chain. In contrast, firms pursuing differentiation strategies are considerably more engaged with these issues, partly because they have better supply chain processes.

Practitioners should carefully consider the fit between strategic position and level of engagement with SR‐SCM, since our results emphasise the relationship between SR‐SCM and business strategy. Proactive engagement with SR‐SCM, however, also implies sound supply chain processes, which must also be aligned with business strategy. Policy‐makers should consider the low engagement with SR‐SCM of low‐cost producers and the implications for SR‐SCM in cost sensitive and competitive global markets.

This is the first systematic cross‐sectional study of the relationship between business strategy and socially responsible supply chain management (SR‐SCM). These results suggest that there is a clear relationship between the strategic position of the firm and their SR‐SCM practices. These results contribute to the on‐going debate on relationships between strategy and supply chain management, and the emerging debate on the relationships between strategy and SR‐SCM.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how organisations use a corporate real estate strategy to support their competitive strategy. It provides a theoretical and empirical overview and analysis of effective combinations of firms' real estate and competitive strategies.

The paper constructs a model that integrates three real estate strategies and three types of competitive strategies. Case studies in ten multinational firms in The Netherlands apply the model, and describe and analyse the combinations of the firms' real estate – and competitive strategies.

A standardisation real estate strategy supports all three competitive strategies: lowest costs, differentiation, and focus. A value‐based real estate strategy supports a competitive strategy of differentiation and differentiation‐focus, and does not contribute to a competitive strategy of lowest costs, or lowest costs‐focus. Finally, an incremental real estate strategy is ambiguous, and does not support any of the three competitive strategies.

The paper constructs a literature‐based model that combines real estate strategy and competitive strategy. It applies the model in a study of ten cases. Practitioners can use the model to analyse and reconsider the combination of their organisation's real estate strategy and competitive strategy. Academics can use the qualitative research results to design further research that qualifies and quantifies the relationship between various elements of real estate – and competitive strategy.

This study investigates the relationship between a firm's competitive strategy and strategic plan intensity, defined as the emphasis placed on strategic planning in guiding the future decisions and activities carried out by organisational members. The research question addressed is “Under what competitive strategy contexts does high strategic plan intensity lead to greater performance?” The competitive strategies considered are low‐cost, differentiation and competitive strategy segmentation. Strategic plan intensity is viewed as the combined emphasis a firm places on mission/vision, long‐term objectives, planned activities, short‐term objectives and policies in guiding the decisions and activities of organisation members.