Hybrid Strategy, Ambidexterity And Environment: Toward An Integrated Typology

Alexandre Lapersonne, Nitin Sanghavi, Claudio De Mattos

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Hybrid strategy, which emerged as a contingency option to Porter's generic strategies framework [1], defends that in a dynamic environment the simultaneous pursuit of "Low Cost" and "Differentiation" approaches is fundamental for the short-term performance and long-term survival of the firm. A vast amount of literature supports the benefits of adopting a mixed approach of strategy: several empirical studies have proved that a hybrid strategy establishes a firm's performance superiority over the pure strategy choice. The hybrid literature has concentrated on the performance linkage and on the debate countering the pure strategy approach, however very little attention has been paid to the challenges presented by the mixed strategy implementation. In fact, despite the rich empirical literature, it is still not clear how firms that adopt a hybrid strategy may successfully integrate the inherent contradiction of the "Low Cost" and "Differentiation" approaches, escaping from the "Stuck in The Middle" outcome. Consequently, after a careful consultation of the relevant literature, we conclude that several types of hybrid strategy implementation, which should correspond to different business environmental situations, exist. In order to study the characteristics of these different types of hybrid strategies implementations, we propose a typology comprising four types of hybrid strategy implementation, defined by two antecedents of the firm and two antecedents of the environment. As a contribution of this article, the proposed typology has the purpose to fill a methodological gap regarding the adoption of Hybrid strategies and we expect that it could be used as a framework for further studies, aiming to suggest managerial implications and further unveil characteristics of the hybrid implementation. Additionally, we align and contrast the hybrid and ambidextrous approaches, which share many similarities. Despite the fact that they have been confounded in empirical studies, we concluded that hybridity and ambidexterity are distinct and complementary concepts: while hybrid strategy defines the value proposition of the firm (a composition of "Low Cost" and "Differentiation"), ambidexterity focus on how to deliver this value with efficiency (Exploitation) and how to renew it effectively (Exploration).
LanguageEnglish
Pages497-508
Number of pages12
JournalUniversal Journal of Management
Volume3
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Integrated
Ambidexterity
Strategy implementation
Costs
Pure strategies
Empirical study
Hybridity
Value proposition
Firm performance
Linkage
Exploitation
Dynamic environment
Mixed strategy
Generic strategies
Contingency

Cite this

@article{793ff004f6304f25b911d176824e7f6f,
title = "Hybrid Strategy, Ambidexterity And Environment: Toward An Integrated Typology",
abstract = "Hybrid strategy, which emerged as a contingency option to Porter's generic strategies framework [1], defends that in a dynamic environment the simultaneous pursuit of {"}Low Cost{"} and {"}Differentiation{"} approaches is fundamental for the short-term performance and long-term survival of the firm. A vast amount of literature supports the benefits of adopting a mixed approach of strategy: several empirical studies have proved that a hybrid strategy establishes a firm's performance superiority over the pure strategy choice. The hybrid literature has concentrated on the performance linkage and on the debate countering the pure strategy approach, however very little attention has been paid to the challenges presented by the mixed strategy implementation. In fact, despite the rich empirical literature, it is still not clear how firms that adopt a hybrid strategy may successfully integrate the inherent contradiction of the {"}Low Cost{"} and {"}Differentiation{"} approaches, escaping from the {"}Stuck in The Middle{"} outcome. Consequently, after a careful consultation of the relevant literature, we conclude that several types of hybrid strategy implementation, which should correspond to different business environmental situations, exist. In order to study the characteristics of these different types of hybrid strategies implementations, we propose a typology comprising four types of hybrid strategy implementation, defined by two antecedents of the firm and two antecedents of the environment. As a contribution of this article, the proposed typology has the purpose to fill a methodological gap regarding the adoption of Hybrid strategies and we expect that it could be used as a framework for further studies, aiming to suggest managerial implications and further unveil characteristics of the hybrid implementation. Additionally, we align and contrast the hybrid and ambidextrous approaches, which share many similarities. Despite the fact that they have been confounded in empirical studies, we concluded that hybridity and ambidexterity are distinct and complementary concepts: while hybrid strategy defines the value proposition of the firm (a composition of {"}Low Cost{"} and {"}Differentiation{"}), ambidexterity focus on how to deliver this value with efficiency (Exploitation) and how to renew it effectively (Exploration).",
keywords = "Hybrid strategy, Exploration, Exploitation, Ambidexterity, Organizational architecture, Turbulence, Hypercompetition, Uncertainty",
author = "Alexandre Lapersonne and Nitin Sanghavi and {De Mattos}, Claudio",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.13189/ujm.2015.031204",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "497--508",
journal = "Universal Journal of Management",
issn = "2331-950X",
publisher = "Horizon Research Publishing",
number = "12",

}

Hybrid Strategy, Ambidexterity And Environment : Toward An Integrated Typology. / Lapersonne, Alexandre; Sanghavi, Nitin; De Mattos, Claudio.

In: Universal Journal of Management, Vol. 3, No. 12, 01.12.2015, p. 497-508.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hybrid Strategy, Ambidexterity And Environment

T2 - Universal Journal of Management

AU - Lapersonne, Alexandre

AU - Sanghavi, Nitin

AU - De Mattos, Claudio

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Hybrid strategy, which emerged as a contingency option to Porter's generic strategies framework [1], defends that in a dynamic environment the simultaneous pursuit of "Low Cost" and "Differentiation" approaches is fundamental for the short-term performance and long-term survival of the firm. A vast amount of literature supports the benefits of adopting a mixed approach of strategy: several empirical studies have proved that a hybrid strategy establishes a firm's performance superiority over the pure strategy choice. The hybrid literature has concentrated on the performance linkage and on the debate countering the pure strategy approach, however very little attention has been paid to the challenges presented by the mixed strategy implementation. In fact, despite the rich empirical literature, it is still not clear how firms that adopt a hybrid strategy may successfully integrate the inherent contradiction of the "Low Cost" and "Differentiation" approaches, escaping from the "Stuck in The Middle" outcome. Consequently, after a careful consultation of the relevant literature, we conclude that several types of hybrid strategy implementation, which should correspond to different business environmental situations, exist. In order to study the characteristics of these different types of hybrid strategies implementations, we propose a typology comprising four types of hybrid strategy implementation, defined by two antecedents of the firm and two antecedents of the environment. As a contribution of this article, the proposed typology has the purpose to fill a methodological gap regarding the adoption of Hybrid strategies and we expect that it could be used as a framework for further studies, aiming to suggest managerial implications and further unveil characteristics of the hybrid implementation. Additionally, we align and contrast the hybrid and ambidextrous approaches, which share many similarities. Despite the fact that they have been confounded in empirical studies, we concluded that hybridity and ambidexterity are distinct and complementary concepts: while hybrid strategy defines the value proposition of the firm (a composition of "Low Cost" and "Differentiation"), ambidexterity focus on how to deliver this value with efficiency (Exploitation) and how to renew it effectively (Exploration).

AB - Hybrid strategy, which emerged as a contingency option to Porter's generic strategies framework [1], defends that in a dynamic environment the simultaneous pursuit of "Low Cost" and "Differentiation" approaches is fundamental for the short-term performance and long-term survival of the firm. A vast amount of literature supports the benefits of adopting a mixed approach of strategy: several empirical studies have proved that a hybrid strategy establishes a firm's performance superiority over the pure strategy choice. The hybrid literature has concentrated on the performance linkage and on the debate countering the pure strategy approach, however very little attention has been paid to the challenges presented by the mixed strategy implementation. In fact, despite the rich empirical literature, it is still not clear how firms that adopt a hybrid strategy may successfully integrate the inherent contradiction of the "Low Cost" and "Differentiation" approaches, escaping from the "Stuck in The Middle" outcome. Consequently, after a careful consultation of the relevant literature, we conclude that several types of hybrid strategy implementation, which should correspond to different business environmental situations, exist. In order to study the characteristics of these different types of hybrid strategies implementations, we propose a typology comprising four types of hybrid strategy implementation, defined by two antecedents of the firm and two antecedents of the environment. As a contribution of this article, the proposed typology has the purpose to fill a methodological gap regarding the adoption of Hybrid strategies and we expect that it could be used as a framework for further studies, aiming to suggest managerial implications and further unveil characteristics of the hybrid implementation. Additionally, we align and contrast the hybrid and ambidextrous approaches, which share many similarities. Despite the fact that they have been confounded in empirical studies, we concluded that hybridity and ambidexterity are distinct and complementary concepts: while hybrid strategy defines the value proposition of the firm (a composition of "Low Cost" and "Differentiation"), ambidexterity focus on how to deliver this value with efficiency (Exploitation) and how to renew it effectively (Exploration).

KW - Hybrid strategy

KW - Exploration

KW - Exploitation

KW - Ambidexterity

KW - Organizational architecture

KW - Turbulence

KW - Hypercompetition

KW - Uncertainty

UR - http://www.hrpub.org/journals/jour_archive.php?id=21

U2 - 10.13189/ujm.2015.031204

DO - 10.13189/ujm.2015.031204

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 497

EP - 508

JO - Universal Journal of Management

JF - Universal Journal of Management

SN - 2331-950X

IS - 12

ER -