Disentangling combinations and contingencies of generic strategies: A set-theoretic configurational approach

Abstract

Porter's framework of generic strategies conceptualizes key elements of firms' strategic positions in their industry. Research on these generic strategies has been challenged by the complexity of capturing relations between generic strategies (i.e., cost leadership, differentiation, and focus) and their interdependencies with other strategic commitments for performance outcomes. We address these challenges by utilizing fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to explore the causal complexity underlying the links between generic strategies and firm performance. Specifically, we study combinations of firms' generic strategies and other strategy attributes as paths to high or low performance in the U.S. and Canadian airline industry. We find six equifinal configurations that are consistently linked to high performance and nine configurations that are consistently linked to the absence of high performance. Our findings shed light on the contingencies underlying performance consequences of generic strategies. Consequently they redirect theoretical debates on the links between generic strategies and firm performance as well as on the superiority of pure versus hybrid generic strategies towards relations of set-theoretic of necessity and sufficiency. Specifically, we show that having a generic strategy advantage is not sufficient for high performance but that it is a vital ingredient in recipes for success. Similarly, our findings suggest that a generic strategy disadvantage is not sufficient for low performance, but is a key ingredient in all paths to poor performance. We conclude with a discussion of our study's contributions to the literature, suggestions for future research, and implications for managerial practice.