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).

Relación entre Estrategias Competitivas y Tipos de Aprendizaje Organizativo en Empresas Colombianas

“…De otro lado, ambos conceptos son complementarios, la estrategia híbrida se encarga de definir la propuesta de valor de una empresa y la ambidestreza se centra en la forma de entregar ese valor con eficiencia (explotación) y de cómo renovar el conocimiento de manera eficaz (exploración). Aunque son dos enfoques distintos, buscan gestionar objetivos empresariales con efectos complementarios a corto plazo, para la sostenibilidad a largo plazo, asimismo, comparten el propósito de desarrollar una capacidad de adaptación al medio ambiente complejo de una industria (Lapersonne et al, 2015). A partir de esta situación, que se ve representada en dos dimensiones diferentes pero complementarias, se plantea la tercera hipótesis: H3: La estrategia híbrida tiene un impacto positivo sobre el aprendizaje ambidiestro.…”

A Case Study on Performance Implications of Hybrid Strategy in Automotive Supplier Industry

“…Turbulent environment is commonly described by increased competitive intensity, disruptive changes in the industry structure, volatility of demand, and unpredictability of customer behaviour; alongside instability of economic, social and political factors (Lapersonne et al, 2015). Many authors defend that these factors may help firms to achieve competitive advantages because turbulent environments may increase ambiguity (Lippman & Rumelt, 1982;Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;Noda & Collis, 2001); therefore, the firms' ability to imitate resources or strategies decreases.…”

“…In fact, many authors defend that business environments have been much more dynamic, unstable and competitive. These turbulent environments are commonly described by increased competitive intensity, disruptive changes in industry structure, volatility of demand, and unpredictability of customer behaviour; alongside instability of economic, social and political factors (Lapersonne et al, 2015). Turbulent environment also leads to unpredictable changes in competitor strategies.…”

Modelling The Development Of Strategic Management

“…Requirements and characteristics of dynamic capabilities are linked to the study of Teece and Pisano (1994), Teece et al (1997). Hybrid strategies aimed at merging two paradigms, and the ever more popular studies on dual-ability enterprises also belong here (Lapersonne et al 2015;Spanos et al 2001). A separate big "chapter" of development are the so-called international strategies (Czakó and Reszegi 2010;Luthans and Doh 2014), which expand the system of SM to an international stage while it also produces new mutations.…”