A Systematic Comparative Analysis and Synthesis of Two Business-Level Strategic

Typologies
Author(s): Eli Segev
Source: Strategic Management Journal , Sep. - Oct., 1989, Vol. 10, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct.,
1989), pp. 487-505
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2486474

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/2486474?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Strategic
Management Journal

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, 487-505 (1989)

A SYSTEMATIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND

SYNTHESIS OF TWO BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGIC
TYPOLOGIES
ELI SEGEV
Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, University Campus Ramat-Aviv, Tel
Aviv, Israel

Two important business-level strategic typologies were systematically evaluated, analyzed

and compared in this study: Porter's Overall Cost Leadership, Differentiation, Focuts, and
'Stuck in the Middle' generic competitive strategies, and Miles and Snow's Defender,
Prospector, Analyzer, and Reactor types of organizational adaptation. On the basis of
strategic theory, and following a pilot study, 31 strategic variables were evaluated by judges
on a seven-point maximum-minimum scale, for each strategy, within its typology. Analysis
of variances and concordance among judges regarding the ranking of the strategies on each
variable were examined, and a strategic profile was built for each strategy. Proximities
between strategies of the two typologies were analyzed using monotonic multidimensional
scaling. The analysis indicated similarities and differences between the two typologies. A
synthesis of the two typologies is suggested along two dimensions: internal consistency of
the strategy, and level of proactiveness.

INTRODUCTION much to the state-of-the-art of the strategic theory

Miles and Snow (1978) proposed a typology of
strategic types based for the most part on the
organization's orientation toward product-market
development. They suggested four strategic types:
Defenders, Prospectors, Analyzers and Reactors.
The first three enjoy similar degrees of success,
while the last is a strategic failure. Porter (1980)
suggested that in any industry there are three
potentially successful generic competitive strate-
gies: Overall Cost Leadership, Differentiation,
and Focus. Porter also described a low-profit-
ability strategy: 'Stuck in the Middle'.
These two highly detailed business-level stra-
tegic typologies, both based on comprehensive
studies, with their rich data and case studies, are
a major addition to the strategic literature.
However, while they presumably classify the same
phenomena, the two typologies are different, each
stressing somewhat different aspects of business-
level strategy. A synthesis of these two important
typologies is long overdue and would contribute
in this area.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Szilagyi and Schweiger (1984), in suggesting a
framework for matching managers to strategies,
reviewed, among others, the typologies of Miles
and Snow and Porter, pointing out the job
requirements and managerial characteristics in
each strategy, but neither making nor implying
any analogy between the typologies. Govindara-
jan (1986) pointed out that the two typologies
use different criteria to classify business-level
strategies, but used them both to increase the
number of dimensions along which a business unit
can be categorized. He compared Differentiation
with Low Cost and Defender with Prospector,
but did not address the question of integrating
the two typologies. Superimposing his suggested
interaction between Porter's typology and decen-
tralization (Govindarajan, 1986, Figure 2, p. 850)

0143-2095/89/060487-19$09.50 Received 29 December 1987

? 1989 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised December 1988

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
488 E. Segev
on the interaction between Miles and Snow's
typology and decentralization (Figure 3, p. 853)
clearly reveals an isomorphism, even though
Govindarajan makes no statement to this effect:
Differentiation is Prospector and Low Cost is
Defender. Hawes and Crittenden (1984) included
about half of Porter's 13 dimensions of competi-
tive strategy in their study of retailing strategies,
but analyzed results using Miles and Snow's
terms (Reactor, Defender). Hambrick (1983b)
suggested that: 'The two typologies are not
incompatible; rather, their juxtaposition indicates
the complex webs of strategic options available
to a business and the difficulty in trying to classify
such options concisely'. He also suggested the
following partial analogy between the two
typologies: the Prospector is a particular type of
Differentiation; the Defender is another type of
differentiation, or a Cost Leader, or both; and
the Reactor is 'Stuck in the Middle'. No analogies
for Analyzers or Focus were suggested. Miller
(1986) suggested a specific differentiation strategy
(innovating differentiators) which he viewed as
being much like Miles and Snow's Prospectors.
Thus no isomorphism between the two typolo-
gies has been suggested, both being separately
acknowledged as useful for research (Dess and
Davis, 1984; Hambrick, 1983b). Since no com-
parative analysis of the two typologies has ever
been performed, and usually only one typology
is used in any given study, the results of studies
in which one typology was used have no bearing
on those in which the other typology was used.
For example, Hambrick et al. (1983) used Miles
and Snow's typology in their study of changes in
product R&D intensity; Snow and Hrebiniak
(1980) used it in a study of distinctive competence
and performance; Adam (1983) suggested using
Miles and Snow's typology for grouping manufac-
turing and service strategies. Hambrick (1983a)
tested and extended Miles and Snow's typology;
sections:
used it in his study of strategic awareness (1981b);
based his studies on environment, strategy and
power (1981a), and on environmental scanning
and organizational strategy (1982) upon it; and
used both typologies in his study of high-profit
strategies in mature capital goods industries
(1983b). Burgelman (1983) used Miles and Snow's
typology, relating its strategies to the strategic
processes proposed by Mintzberg (see also Segev,
1987a,b).
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On the other hand, Dess and Davis (1984)
bound up the empirical findings of their research
on strategic group membership and organizational
performance with Porter's typology. Karnani
(1984) provided analytical support for Porter's
Differentiation and Cost Leadership strategies.
Wright (1984) applied Porter's typology to a
multinational corporation operating in the Third
World context. White (1986) used Porter's
typology in his study of business strategies,
organizational context and performance; he
specifically pointed out that Porter's typology
does not correspond directly to Miles and Snow's
typology, and that they are not mutually exclusive,
but are, rather, different aspects of a complex
phenomenon.
Thus, the accumulated knowledge generated
by studies which made use of these typologies
tends to be fragmented and incompatible. The
purpose of this paper is to perform a comparative
analysis and synthesis of the two typologies.
METHOD
The comparative analysis and synthesis is based
on the proximities among the strategies included
in the two typologies. The two typologies and
their component strategies are presented briefly,
and insofar as possible in their authors' words,
in Appendix 1. These strategies were evaluated
by a board of judges. For each strategy,
31 strategic variables (discussed later) were
evaluated, disaggregating the strategy into its
basic, distinguishable elements. The values of the
31 strategic variables created a comparable profile
for each strategy. The proximities among these
strategic profiles were calculated and presented
in a matrix as well as in a two-dimensional
monotonic scaling. The following detailed dis-
cussion of the method is divided into four
1. The size and composition of the board of
judges/evaluators who participated in the
study.
2. The study's procedure.
3. The rationale for the 31 strategic variables
used for evaluating each strategy relative to
other strategies in the same typology.
4. The analysis of these evaluations in building
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 489
a profile for each strategy; the calculations of
the relative proximities among the profiles of
the strategies; and the monotonic multidimen-
sional scaling of these relative proximities.
Judges/evaluators
The study was conducted at the Faculty of
Management, The Leon Recanati Graduate
School of Business Administration, Tel-Aviv
University. The judges/evaluators were a class of
25 graduating MBA students participating in an
elective seminar on 'Strategic Typologies'. A
prerequisite for this seminar is a required course
in Business Policy, for which the prerequisites
are all the required basic and specialization
courses. The students entering this seminar thus
had a solid grounding in the most recent theories
of business administration and had taken the
program's capstone course in Business Policy.
They were well versed in the management
literature, and had particularly well-developed
skills for in-depth and critical analysis of assigned
readings. For the purpose of this study, the
members of this group, because of their edu-
cation, knowledge and abilities, are preferred to
practicing managers, though, of course, a panel
of strategy/policy professors would have been
even more preferable.
Procedure
A pilot study was conducted in the 1986 fall
semester, and the study itself in the 1987 summer
semester. The judges/evaluators were first intro-
duced to the holistic approach to strategic studies
(Hambrick, 1984; Miller, 1981), and to the
classification of strategies into typologies. Then,
the strategic variables (defined in Appendix 2)
were discussed and defined. Later, the students
were asked to study one typology at a time, and
evaluate each strategy relative to other strategies
in the same typology, in preparation for class
discussion.
A structured form of maximum-minimum
seven-point scales was used (Appendix 3). It was
especially emphasized that each strategy should
be evaluated relative only to other strategies
belonging to its typology, and a special 'no data'
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
option was included for each variable in case the
evaluator found no data for it in the strategy
definition, description, or examples. Also
included, for validating the evaluator's under-
standing and proficiency, were open questions
relating to the implicit and explicit assumptions
of the typology as a whole, and each strategy,
with regard to industry type and concentration;
the stage in the industry life cycle; management
values and the overall goal of the business; and
type of ownership. When answers were incorrect
or partial, the evaluations of that judge for the
specific typology were not included in the
analyzed data. Also omitted were late evaluations.
Strategic variables
This study used a framework for a strategic
theory and the detailed list of variables for
operationalizations of the following strategic
meta-variables proposed by Segev (1987a, 1988):
environment, strategy content, strategy-making
process, organizational structure, performance,
and organizational characteristics.
From the multitude of possible strategic vari-
ables, an initial list of business-level variables
was compiled using two criteria:
1. capturing the essence of each strategic meta-
variable; and
2. the availability of at least some data on the
variable in at least one typology.
On the basis of the results of the pilot study the
list of variables was altered. A few variables were
dropped because the evaluations based on the
very thin data on them in the typology were
inconsistent, while others were added on the
basis of the pilot evaluators' suggestions. The
final list of variables used in the study consisted
of 31 strategic variables (Appendix 2). Later on
in the study, however, some of them, such as
Environment Hostility or Debt vs. Equity, were
found to be not useful; they are reported
nevertheless, for the sake of completeness.
(Another important conclusion of the pilot study
was the division of Porter's Focus strategy into
Cost-focus and Differentiation-focus, each having
a different strategic profile; see also Porter,
1983.)
 490 E. Segev
Analysis
Strategic profile
The evaluations' means and standard deviations
for Porter's typology are presented in Table 1,
and for Miles and Snow's typology in Table 2.
In order to build the profile of variables of
each strategy, analysis of variance was performed
on each variable, by strategy, in the same
typology; in addition, the concordance among
judges on the strategies' rank order on each
variable was analyzed. Tables 1 and 2 also present
the analysis of variances and Kendall W rank
concordance among judges.
The mean evaluation of the judges was deemed
to be the value for the variable to be included
in the strategy's profile if the following conditions
were fulfilled:
1. There were at least six judges who found
enough data in the typology description,
definition, discussion and examples for eval-
uating the variable for all strategies in the
same typology.
2. The variance among the evaluations of the
same strategy were significantly (p<0.05)
smaller than the variance among the evalu-
ations of the different strategies in the same
typology.
3. There was a significant (p<0.05) concordance
among the judges on the rank order of the
strategies on the variable scale.
If all these conditions were not fulfilled, no value
was assigned to the variable for any strategy in
its typology, and the variable was defined as
missing.
Proximities
Next, the profiles of the strategies of the two
typologies were compared. The relative proximity
(Pxy) between the profiles of two strategies (x
and y) was defined as:
El Vxi - Vyi/ln
Where Vxi is the value for variable i in the
strategy x profile, Vyi is the value in the strategy
y profile, i = 1, 2 . . ., 31, and n denotes the
number of paired (non-missing) variables (e.g.
see Schoonhoven, 1981).
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
It is important to note that all evaluated
variables in the strategy profile were assigned
equal weights. Any other approach would require
an appropriate theoretical basis, or would have
to emerge from the typologies themselves. Since
the purpose of the analysis is to seek similarities
between the two typologies, rather than to
evaluate each strategy on an as yet non-existing
comprehensive concept of business-level strategy,
the assigning of equal weights to all strategic
variables was preferred. Table 3 presents the
values of Pxy for all Porter/Miles and Snow
strategy combinations.
Two-dimensional approximation
The monotonic multidimensional scaling (Gutt-
man, 1968) of the relative proximities is presented
in Figure 1. The scaling is two-dimensional, 19
iterations were performed, and the Guttman/
Lingoes coefficient of alienation is 0.041. Of
course, the scaling presents only the relative
positioning of the strategies. The rationale for the
orthogonal axes, their positioning and meaning is
discussed later.
RESULTS
The following variables were assigned missing
values for Porter's typology: Uncertainty, Dyna-
mism, Hostility, Complexity, Equity vs. Debt,
Level of Risk, and Size of Strategy-making Team.
For Miles and Snow's typology the variables
Hostility, Equity vs. Debt, and Liquidity were
assigned missing values.
Analysis of the matrix of relative proximities
among the strategic profiles of the two business-
level strategic typologies (Table 3) indicates that
Miles and Snow's Defender is closest to Porter's
Cost-focus (P=83); Prospector is closest to
Differentiation (P=93); Analyzer to Differen-
tiation (P=90) and Cost-focus (P=88); and
the Reactor is Stuck in the Middle (P=204).
Inspection of the horizontal rows reveals that
Porter's Cost-leader is closest to Miles and Snow's
Analyzer (P=74) and Defender (P=90); Cost-
focus to Analyzer (P=88); Differentiation-focus
to both Prospector (P=77) and Analyzer (P=69);
and the Stuck in the Middle is clearly a Reactor
(P=204).
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 491

Table 1. Analysis of variance and rank order concordance among judges of 31 strategic variables by Porter's
generic competitive strategies'

Cost Differen- Cost- Differen- Stuck F2 W1

Strategic leader- tiation Focus tiation in
variables ship Focus Middle

1 Uncertainty 3.44 4.63 4.71 5.25 6.33 17.3770 0.6578

1.13 0.92 1.38 0.89 0.82 0.0000 0.0105
(9) (8) (7) (8) (6) (5)
2 Dynamism 3.11 4.89 3.57 3.88 4.29 1.1200 0.2938
2.03 1.54 2.15 1.89 1.89 0.3627 0.1332
(9) (9) (7) (8) (7) (6)
3 Hostility 4.00 2.83 4.50 1.75 4.60 1.8340 0.2041
2.12 1.94 2.38 0.96 1.67 0.1640 0.6538
(5) (6) (4) (4) (5) (3)

4 Complexity 3.92 5.00 3.90 3.44 5.00 1.4470 0.1453

1.56 1.56 1.81 2.46 1.41 0.2340 0.3969
(12) (10) (11) (9) (8) (7)
5 Technological 5.58 5.56 5.75 5.38 2.61 15.8980 0.3857
Progress 1.61 1.15 1.06 1.26 1.75 0.0000 0.0001
(19) (18) (16) (16) (18) (15)

6 Product/Market 5.95 4.26 2.38 1.94 3.27 21.4420 0.4559

Breadth 1.55 1.56 1.26 1.18 1.67 0.0000 0.0001
(19) (19) (16) (16) (15) (13)

7 Product 3.26 6.11 3.63 5.69 2.14 33.1700 0.8229

Innovation 1.63 0.66 1.26 0.79 1.29 0.0000 0.0000
(19) (19) (16) (16) (14) (12)
8 Quality 3.53 6.53 4.14 6.75 2.75 40.9030 0.7684
1.42 0.51 1.66 0.58 1.29 0.0000 0.0000
(17) (19) (14) (16) (16) (14)

9 Price Level 2.32 5.47 2.88 6.13 3.44 13.6250 0.4163

2.16 1.93 2.09 1.41 1.63 0.0000 0.0001
(19) (19) (16) (16) (16) (14)
10 Active Marketing 2.53 6.58 3.38 5.81 2.75 36.9390 0.6338
1.43 0.51 1.86 0.98 1.22 0.0000 0.0000
(19) (19) (16) (16) (12) (11)
11 Control System 6.95 3.44 6.44 3.63 2.39 70.3130 0.8578
Level 0.23 1.10 0.63 1.26 1.38 0.0000 0.0000
(19) (18) (16) (16) (18) (16)
12 Equity vs. Debt 6.00 4.50 4.56 3.57 1.75 10.6530 Insuffi-
0.71 1.05 1.42 1.72 1.50 0.0000 cient no.
(13) (6) (9) (7) (4) of cases

13 Long-range 5.80 4.38 4.92 4.13 1.64 24.3790 0.6283

Financial 1.08 1.51 1.08 0.99 0.81 0.0000 0.0015
Strength (15) (8) (12) (8) (11) (7)
14 Resources Level 6.32 4.68 4.81 4.33 2.77 13.9560 0.6019
0.82 1.29 1.52 1.68 1.36 0.0000 0.0001
(19) (19) (16) (15) (13) (10)

15 Investment in 6.68 4.05 5.19 3.07 2.40 34.9100 0.7922

Production 0.58 1.51 1.17 1.28 1.24 0.0000 0.0000
(19) (19) (16) (15) (15) (13)
16 No. of 3.29 5.73 3.00 3.73 3.91 4.8610 0.3864
Technologies 1.93 1.19 1.7S 1.8S 1.30 0.0019 0.0148

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
492 E. Segev

Table 1. Continued

Cost Differen- Cost- Differen- Stuck F2 WX

Strategic leader- tiation Focus tiation in
variables ship Focus Middle

17 Professionalization 3.72 6.21 4.44 6.19 3.31 15.4510 0.3865

1.71 0.98 1.63 1.38 1.11 0.0000 0.0010
(18) (19) (16) (16) (13) (12)

18 Internal Analysis 6.28 4.68 5.69 4.69 2.12 19.5410 0.5287

Level 1.07 1.49 1.14 1.82 1.67 0.0000 0.0000
(18) (19) (16) (16) (16) (15)

19 External Analysis 4.72 6.06 4.81 6.25 2.29 18.3990 0.6008

and Forecasting 1.64 1.43 1.47 1.83 1.76 0.0000 0.0000
Level (18) (18) (16) (16) (17) (15)

20 Level of Risk 2.94 4.18 3.86 4.64 4.81 3.1690 0.1600

1.20 1.24 1.61 1.34 2.61 0.0186 0.0621
(17) (17) (14) (14) (16) (14)
21 Proactive 3.29 6.06 4.08 5.93 2.47 22.5850 0.6350
Managerial Style 1.49 0.93 1.32 0.62 1.81 0.0000 0.0000
(17) (16) (13) (14) (15) (12)

22 Size of 2.11 5.63 2.13 3.63 5.50 12.4970 Insuffi-

Strategy-making 1.05 1.30 0.35 1.85 0.71 0.0000 cient no.
team (9) (8) (8) (8) (2) of cases

23 Centralization 6.13 2.85 4.71 2.42 2.82 19.5370 0.5203

1.26 0.99 1.77 1.31 1.25 0.0000 0.0023
(16) (13) (14) (12) (11) (8)
24 Mechanism 6.44 2.44 5.38 2.25 3.90 42.8420 0.7745
0.70 1.21 1.12 0.87 1.60 0.0000 0.0000
(18) (16) (13) (12) (10) (9)
25 Profitability 5.47 5.21 5.63 5.56 1.47 37.4990 0.6561
1.58 1.13 1.09 1.26 0.80 0.0000 0.0000
(19) (19) (16) (16) (17) (15)

DISCUSSION both the analysis of variance and the tests on

Evaluation of typologies
Porter's (1980) definition, discussion and
examples of the generic competitive strategies
are deliberately devoided of environmental
characteristics. He proposed his typology for all
industries and environments, though later in his
book he did relate to industries at different stages
of their life cycle, such as emerging, maturing and
declining, each posing a different environment for
the organization. The results of this study
demonstrate this property of the typology: the
evaluations of the environmental variables did
not fulfill the criteria set for the study. First,
many judges found no data on these variables.
Then, for Dynamism, Hostility, and Complexity
rank order concordance among judges were not
significant. Even though for Uncertainty both
tests were significant, because of relatively small
number of evaluations (five) this variable was
also assigned missing values for Porter's typology.
Miles and Snow's typology lends itself better
to evaluation of environmental variables; only
Hostility was assigned missing values. Other
missing values for this typology are Equity vs.
Debt and Liquidity. In Porter's typology Equity
vs. Debt is missing, and liquidity barely meets
one criterion (six evaluations). It is important to
note that these two basic strategic ratios, which
are easily measured and much discussed (financial
leverage and quick test), are probably less
important in typifying strategic profiles.

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 493

Table 1. Continued

Cost Differen- Cost- Differen- Stuck F W2

Strategic leader- tiation Focus tiation in
variables ship Focus Middle

26 Market Share 6.89 3.83 3.00 2.06 2.56 57.4810 0.7671

0.32 1.15 1.10 0.93 1.54 0.0000 0.0000
(19) (18) (16) (16) (18) (15)
27 Rate of growth 5.35 3.87 3.00 2.29 1.08 17.6710 0.7426
1.66 1.73 1.56 1.38 0.29 0.0000 0.0000
(17) (15) (15) (14) (12) (10)
28 Operational 6.84 3.84 6.06 3.73 1.93 51.1390 0.8080
Efficiency 0.37 1.46 1.18 1.28 1.03 0.0000 0.0000
(19) (19) (16) (15) (15) (12)
29 Liquidity 5.27 4.83 4.70 4.17 2.00 4.5620 0.6258
1.90 1.83 1.83 2.14 1.50 0.0043 0.0047
(11) (6) (10) (6) (9) (6)
30 Organizational 6.44 3.64 2.64 2.08 3.75 45.5750 0.8007
Size 0.51 1.01 1.36 0.90 1.14 0.0000 0.0002
(18) (14) (11) (12) (12) (7)
31 Organizational Age 5.94 5.00 3.90 2.44 4.43 15.4970 0.6553
0.87 1.47 1.37 0.73 1.13 0.0000 0.0108
(18) (14) (10) (9) (7) (5)

1 Mean
Standard deviation (No. of cases)
2 F value
significance of F
3 Kendall Coefficient of Concordance W
significance of W
(No. of cases)

In addition, the results show that Level of
Risk, and Size of Strategy-making team cannot
be evaluated for Porter's typology. Though both
typologies focus on business-level strategies,
Porter placed less emphasis on behavioral aspects
of strategy-making.
light on the difficulties scholars have encountered
in trying to make a synthesis from these
two business-level strategy typologies and their
conflicting suggestions (Hambrick, 1983b; Govin-
darajan, 1986).
For the following detailed discussion of differ-
ences between two strategies in relation to specific
strategic variables, three levels of differences are
defined:

Pairing strategies
The problematics of comparing the two typologies
is illuminated in the following results. The best
match for Cost-leader is the Analyzer; he and
the Prospector are best matched with Differen-
tiation, but Differentiation lies mid-way between
the Analyzer and the Prospector. Furthermore,
the best match for Differentiation-focus is the
Prospector. The results of this study shed some
1. major differences when lVxi-Vyil>3;
2. medium differences when 3>JVxi-VyiJ>l1.5;
3. notable differences when lVxi-Vyil-1
For major and medium differences, their
direction is also discussed.
The most striking resemblance was found
between the evaluations of the two failing
strategies: Reactor and Stuck in the Middle. No

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
494 E. Segev

Table 2. Analysis of variance and rank order concordance among judges of 31 strategic variances by
Miles and Snow's strategic adaptation types'

Strategic Defender Prospector Analyzer Reactor FW Is

variables

1 Uncertainty 1.57 5.76 3.53 5.74 41.7350 0.5999

1.17 1.18 0.90 2.13 0.0000 0.0000
(21) (21) (19) (19) (17)
2 Dynamism 1.41 6.91 4.52 4.19 85.2260 0.7575
0.80 0.29 0.81 2.20 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (21) (16) (15)
3 Hostility 4.75 3.60 4.33 3.00 0.6140 0.4483
2.87 2.31 1.15 1.79 0.6174 0.2578
(4) (5) (3) (6) (3)

4 Complexity 1.55 6.43 5.10 3.92 52.2750 0.6753

1.05 1.03 1.12 2.11 0.0000 0.0001
(20) (21) (20) (12) (11)
5 Technological 4.86 5.64 4.82 2.18 12.7210 0.5047
Progress 2.42 2.13 0.80 1.33 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (17) (17)

6 Product/Market 1.59 5.68 5.18 2.92 35.8380 0.7934

Breadth 1.50 1.78 1.30 1.11 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (13) (13)
7 Product Innovation 1.68 6.95 4.68 2.00 143.3530 0.8677
1.36 0.21 0.78 1.11 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (19) (19)

8 Quality 5.86 5.47 5.30 2.18 17.8580 0.4910

2.10 1.68 1.08 1.74 0.0000 0.0001
(21) (19) (20) (17) (14)
9 Price Level 1.32 6.61 4.40 4.30 125.5400 0.7356
0.57 0.70 0.88 1.49 0.0000 0.0005
(22) (18) (20) (10) (8)
10 Active Marketing 3.14 6.52 5.45 2.07 31.3350 0.5560
2.31 1.03 1.05 1.49 0.0000 0.0000
(21) (21) (20) (15) (14)
11 Control System 7.00 2.41 4.45 2.07 83.2310 0.8097
Level 0.00 1.62 0.91 1.27 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (14) (14)
12 Equity vs. Debt 5.44 3.90 4.50 2.67 1.6900 0.1724
2.24 2.56 0.93 1.53 0.1936 0.6704
(9) (10) (8) (3) (3)
13 Long-range 4.88 4.11 5.83 1.06 25.9410 0.8204
Financial 1.87 1.81 1.95 0.25 0.0000 0.0000
Strength (17) (18) (18) (16) (12)

14 Resources Level 4.30 4.86 5.18 2.69 5.9200 0.3161

2.11 1.83 1.53 1.49 0.0011 0.0098
(20) (22) (22) (13) (12)
15 Investment in 6.18 2.91 4.59 3.55 14.1650 0.3039
Production 1.65 2.39 0.96 1.51 0.0000 0.0183
(22) (22) (22) (11) (11)
16 No. of 1.00 6.77 3.73 3.20 171.5340 0.8835
Technologies 0.00 0.53 1.28 1.14 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (10) (10)
17 Professionalization 2.27 6.68 4.73 2.20 59.5590 0.6190
1.67 0.89 1.03 1.32 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (15) (15)

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 495

Table 2. Continued

Strategic Defender Prospector Analyzer Reactor F

variables

18 Internal Analysis 6.82 3.68 5.62 1.70 37.5590 0.6816

Level 0.66 2.63 1.50 1.22 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (21) (20) (19)
19 External Analysis 2.05 6.95 5.24 1.33 229.6170 0.9194
and Level 0.95 0.21 1.04 0.80 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (21) (21) (20)
20 Level of Risk 2.68 6.00 2.62 6.38 35.2760 0.5693
1.73 1.31 1.53 1.54 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (21) (16) (15)
21 Proactive 2.86 6.76 4.90 1.95 36.5020 0.6492
Managerial Style 2.26 0.77 1.45 1.64 0.0000 0.0000
(21) (21) (21) (20) (20)
22 Size of 1.29 6.50 4.57 3.40 88.4270 0.8053
Strategy-making 0.56 1.01 0.81 1.93 0.0000 0.0000
Team (21) (22) (21) (12) (10)

23 Centralization 6.95 1.09 3.86 3.80 209.8610 0.8571

0.21 0.29 0.57 1.61 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (21) (15) (14)
24 Mechanism 6.68 1.09 4.14 3.93 111.8210 0.8481
1.29 0.29 0.83 1.44 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (14) (14)

25 Profitability 6.09 4.41 6.45 1.14 127.7930 0.8399

1.19 1.37 0.74 0.47 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (22) (22)
26 Market Share 2.95 5.50 5.41 2.11 20.3570 0.4389
2.52 1.57 1.18 1.33 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (19) (19)

27 Rate of Growth 1.95 6.33 4.38 1.47 126.5200 0.8433

1.07 0.97 0.74 0.72 0.0000 0.0000
(21) (21) (21) (17) (17)
28 Operational 6.77 2.23 5.00 1.81 77.8500 0.8109
Efficiency 0.53 1.54 1.15 1.38 0.0000 0.0000
(22) (22) (22) (16) (16)

29 Liquidity 3.00 5.63 4.00 1.33 4.1340 Insuffi-

2.45 1.20 0.00 0.58 0.0254 cient no.
(6) (8) (2) (3) of cases

30 Organizational 3.22 4.00 6.13 4.00 7.4020 0.2770

Size 2.49 2.00 1.20 0.50 0.0003 0.0581
(18) (17) (16) (9) (9)

31 Organizational Age 5.87 2.20 5.84 4.75 24.4990 0.7277

1.25 1.70 1.12 1.49 0.0000 0.0122
(15) (15) (19) (8) (5)

1 Mean
Standard Deviation
(No. of cases)
2 F value
significance of F
3 Kendall coefficient of concordance W
significance of W
(No. of cases)

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
496 E. Segev

Table 3. Relative proximity (Pxy) among strategic profiles in the two business-level strategies
typologies

Strategy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Defender
2. Prospector 27
3. Analyzer 49 53
4. Reactor 40 35 43 -

5. Cost Leader 72 35 74 35
6. Differentiation 39 93 90 38 45
7. Cost-focus 83 40 88 45 82 64
8. Differentiation-focus 41 77 69 41 37 134 67 -
9. Stuck in the Middle 43 36 43 204 37 44 51 66

Comparison of the evaluations of the Cost-

leader with those of the Defender reveals the
differences shown in Table 4. For all these
Cost-Leader
strategic variables, except for Quality, the Cost-
leader has higher values than those of the
Defender.
Analyze
Comparison of Cost-leader and Analyzer
Differett Cost-Focus Defender
Prospector reveals no major differences, and the medium
differences shown in Table 5.
Differentiation
-Focus Comparison of the evaluated profile of Differ-
entiation with the profile of the Prospector
reveals no major differences. Medium differences
are shown in Table 6.
The comparison of Differentiation with
Stuck in
the middle Analyzer reveals no major differences, and the
Reactor
medium differences shown in Table 7.

Figure 1. Monotonic multidimensional scaling-' of
relative proximities between strategic profiles
*Two-dimensional solution; coefficient of alienation
= 0.04
major differences or medium differences were
found between the two profiles. Differences were
noted only in four strategic variables:
Investment in Production
Professionalization
External Analysis and Forecasting Level
Centralization
In drawing a parallel between these two strategies,
Porter's Stuck in the Middle is, of course,
enriched with environmental characteristics (high
Uncertainty, medium Dynamism and Complexity),
and a medium Size of Strategy-making Team.
The comparison of the profile evaluated for
Cost-focus with that of the Defender reveals no
major differences, and the medium differences
shown in Table 8.
The comparison of Cost-focus with Analyzer
reveals no major differences and the medium
differences shown in Table 9.
The comparison of the judges' evaluations of
the values of the Differentiation-focus and the
Prospector reveals the following major differ-
ences, in all of them the Prospector ranked
higher:
Product/Market Breadth Market Share
No. of Technologies Rate of Growth
Medium difference was found only in the
Operational Efficiency (Differentiation-focus has
a higher level), and the notable differences were
in:

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 497

Table 4.

Major Medium Notable

Product/Market Breadth Product Innovation Price Level

Market Share Resource Level Long-range Financial Strength
Rate of Growth No. of Technologies Professionalization
External Analysis and
Forecasting Level Quality

Table 5.

Cost-leader ranks higher Analyzer ranks higher

Control System Level Quality

Investment in Production Price Level
Centralization Active Marketing
Mechanism Proactive Management Style
Market Share
Operational Efficiency
The notable differences are in:
Product Innovation Profitability
Resource Level Rate of Growth
Professionalization

Table 6.

Differentiation ranks higher Prospector ranks higher

Centralization Market Share, and

Operational Efficiency, and Organizational Size Rate of Growth
The nine notable differences are:
Product Market Breadth No. of Technologies
Quality Internal Analysis Level
Price Level External Analysis and Forecasting Level
Control System Level
Investment in Production Mechanism

Table 7.

Differentiation ranks higher Analyzer ranks higher

Control System Level Product/Market Breadth

Price Level
Active Marketing
Market Share
Organizational Age
The notable differences are in:
Technological Progress Long-range Financial Strength
Product Innovation Mechanism
Quality Rate of Growth
Price Level Operational efficiency

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
498 E. Segev

Table 8.

Cost-focus ranks higher Defender ranks higher

Product Innovation Quality

Price Level Centralization, and
No. of Technologies Organizational Age
Professionalization, and
External Analysis and Forecasting Level
Notable differences are in:
Technological Progress Proactive Managerial Style
Investment in Production Mechanism
Internal Analysis Level

Table 9.

Cost-focus ranks higher Analyzer ranks higher

Control System Level Product/Market Breadth

Price Level
Active Marketing
Market Share
Organizational Age
Notable differences are in:
Technological Progress Mechanism
Product Innovation Centralization
Quality Operational Efficiency
Long-range Financial Strength

Product Innovation Centralization Quality

Quality Mechanism Resources Level Centralization
Control System Level Profitability Internal Analysis Level Profitability
Internal Analysis Level External Analysis and Operational
Forecasting Level Efficiency
The comparison of Differentiation-focus with
the Analyzer reveals differences in which the
Differentiation-focus has lower values (Table 10). A synthesis of the two business-level typologies
On the other hand, Differentiation-focus has
The relative positioning of the nine strategies on
higher values in the following medium differences:
a two-dimensional space as obtained from the
multidimensional scaling (Figure 1), facilitates
Long-range Financial Mechanism the comparison and synthesis of the two typologies
Strength as wholes in addition to the previous pairing of
Investment in Rate of Growth strategies from both typologies.
Production Two orthogonal patterns are evident in Figure
1. All but the two failing strategies are at the
The notable differences are in:
upper part of the scaling, and the successful
Product Innovation Proactive strategies are distributed roughly from right to
Managerial left. This suggests two dimensions which may
Style serve as a basis for the synthesis of the two

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 499
Table 10.
Major differences Medium differences
Product/Market Breadth Price Level
Market Share
Organizational Size
typologies. These dimensions are represented
graphically on Figure 1 by two axes, the first
being a vertical axis passing in the middle of the
seven successful strategies, through the Analyzer,
Stuck in the Middle, and the Reactor. This
dimension is termed here the internal consistency
of the strategy (and, thus, level of performance).
Note that all but the two failing strategies have
high and almost identical rates of internal
consistency of strategy and rates of performance.
This is consistent with Miles and Snow's conten-
tion that in any industry the Defender, Prospec-
tor, and Analyzer will achieve the same profit-
ability, and Porter's contention that Cost
Leadership, Differentiation, and Focus are strat-
egies which promise a rate of return higher than
the industry's average. Both the Reactor and
Stuck in the Middle are ill-conceived strategies,
producing incompatibility with their environments
and realizing a relatively low level of performance.
It is little wonder that the Cost-leader strategy,
which requires the highest level of refinement,
fine tuning, and efficiency, is ranked highest on
this dimension.
Once the internal consistency dimension is
established, the orthogonal one is evident. It is
consistent with the notion that there is a Defender/
Prospector spectrum on which the Analyzer is a
mid-point hybrid (Hambrick, 1983a). It is also
consistent with Porter's construct of strategic
advantage which is either low cost (for both cost
strategies) or perceived uniqueness (for both
differentiation strategies). Last, the Stuck in the
Middle and the Reactor are positioned in the
middle, an indication that failures cannot be
categorized on this dimension.
This second dimension is termed here the
strategy's rate of proactiveness. This is mainly
based not only on the relative positions of the
Prospector (highest) and Defender (lowest) on
this spectrum (and the mid-point Analyzer), but
also on the way Porter's generic competitive
strategies conveniently aligned along this dimen-
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sion. Cost Leadership and Cost-focus lie about
the mid-range half of low proactiveness, and
Differentiation, and Differentiation-focus about
the mid-range half of high proactiveness. Both
Focus strategies are marginally closer to the
Analyzer than to the ends of the scale, and
somewhat less profitable than their industry-wide
counterparts.
Unlike other typologies (e.g. Miller and
Friesen, 1978), each of the two typologies
analyzed here suggest only one failing strategy.
Thus they do not enable further analysis of non-
success. Both the Reactor strategy and the Stuck
in the Middle strategy are located on the axis
that indicates lack of internal consistency among
the components of business-level strategy, one
of which is consistency with the business-unit
environment (see Figure 1).
On the other hand, the seven successful
strategies, which are aligned along the second
axis, termed here the proactiveness level of the
business unit strategy, deserve consideration.
From a short-term point of view, the proactiveness
level may be perceived as level of risk. The
Defender as well as the Cost Leadership and
Cost-focus are low-risk strategies, while the
Prospector, Differentiation, and Differentiation-
focus incorporate high risk level. However, the
identical performance level suggests similar risk
levels for all the seven strategies. In the longer
run this apparent inconsistency is resolved.
Though the Defender, for example, with its
captive market, known technology, efficient
production, and so on, has a low level of risk in
the short term, it is highly vulnerable to
major shifts occurring outside its immediate task
environment, which may undermine the very
basis of its existence. On the other hand,
the Prospector's innovativeness and frequent
changing prevent major and unexpected crises.
Thus, in the long run, the average profitability
is similar for all the seven successful business-
level strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
A combination of the Porter typology with the
Miles and Snow typology forms a new typology
that is coherent. The synthesized combination
can be displayed conveniently against the dimen-
 500 E. Segev
sions of consistency (the internal consistenty of
the elements of the strategy) and proactiveness
(the degree to which the strategy is proactive)
(Figure 2).
The outcome of this synthesis is a typology
incorporating the relevant components lacking
in Porter's typology, i.e. the environmental
components of Uncertainty, Dynamism, and
Complexity; Level of Risk; and Size of Strategy-
making Team. At the same time, some infor-
mation (albeit marginal) missing from Miles and
Snow's typology on liquidity rate is provided.
An interesting conclusion emerges in analyzing
the differences (major, medium, notable)
between paired strategies on each variable. This
analysis indicates the areas in which the two
compared business-level typologies are matched
and the degree of matching. Major differences
were related to the following strategic variables:
Product/Market Breadth (3), Market Share (3),
Growth Rate (2), Size (1), and Number of
Technologies (1), medium and notable differences
were also found for these variables. It seems
that Porter's typology focused mainly on more
concentrated industries with larger business units,
while Miles and Snow's typology focused on
industries with more competitors. The synthesis
of the two typologies compensates for this
difference.
The synthesis proposed in this paper will enable
researchers to relate previous findings in the
context of one typology to the framework of the
second typology. It is no longer necessary for
researchers to enrich their view of a strategic
situation by the separate application of each
typology. The richness can be obtained by using
this synthesis.
High Low
Proactiveness Proactiveness
High ,Differentiation Cost_Leader
Consistency Prospector Differ. - Cost Analyzer Cost LeadFes Defender
Stuck
in the Reactor
Low Middle
Consistency
Figure 2. A combination of the Porter typology with
the Miles and Snow typology
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REFERENCES
Adam, E. E. Jr. 'Towards a typology of production
and operations management systems', Academy of
Management Review, 8, 1983, pp. 365-375.
Burgelman, R. A. 'Corporate entrepreneurship and
strategic management: insights from a process
study', Management Science, 29, 1983, pp.
1349-1364.
Dess, G. G. and P. S. Davis. 'Porter's (1980)
generic strategies as determinants of strategic group
membership and organizational performance',
Academy of Management Journal,, 27, 1984, pp.
467-488.
Govindarajan, V. 'Decentralization, strategy and
effectiveness of strategic business units in multibusi-
ness organizations', Academy of Managenment
Review, 11, 1986, pp. 844-856.
Guttman, L. 'A general nonmetric technique for finding
the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of
points', Psychometrika, 33, 1968, pp. 469-506.
Hambrick, D. C. 'Environment, strategy and power
within top management teams', Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26, 1981a, pp. 253-276.
Hambrick, D. C. 'Strategic awareness within top
management teams', Strategic Management Journal,
2, 1981b, pp. 263-279.
Hambrick, D. C. 'Some tests of the effectiveness and
functional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic
types', Acad.emy of Management Journal, 26, 1983a,
pp. 5-26.
Hambrick, D. C. 'Environmental scanning and organi-
zational scanning', Strategic Management Journal, 3,
1982, pp. 159-174.
Hambrick, D. C. 'High profit strategies in mature
capital goods industries: a contingency approach',
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 1983b, pp.
687-707.
Hambrick, D. C. 'Taxonomic approaches to studying
strategy: some conceptual and methodological
issues', Joulrnal of Management, 10, 1984, pp.
27-41.
Hambrick, D. C., I. C. MacMillan and R. R.
Barbarosa. 'Business unit strategy and changes in
the product R&D budget', Management Science,
29, 1983, pp. 757-769.
Hawes, J. M. and W. F. Crittenden. 'A taxonomy of
competitive retailing strategies', Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 5, 1984, pp. 275-287.
Karnani, A. 'Generic competitive strategies-an ana-
lytical approach', Strategic Managem.ent Journal, 5,
1984, pp. 367-380.
Miles, R. E. and C. C. Snow. Organizational Strategy,
Structure and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York,
1978.
Miller, D. 'Toward a new contingency approach: the
search for organizational gestalts', Journal of
Management Studies, 18, 1981, pp. 1-26.
Miller, D. 'Configurations of strategy and structure:
towards a synthesis', Strategic Maniagement Journal,
7, 1986, pp. 233-249.
Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen. 'Archetypes of strategy
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 501
formulation', Management Science, 24, 1978, pp.
921-933.
Mintzberg, H. 'Strategy making in three modes',
California Management Review, 16, 1973, pp. 44-53.
Porter, M. E. Comnpetitive Strategy: Techniques for
AnalyZing I idustries and Competitors. Free Press,
New York, 1980.
Porter, M. E. Competitive Advantage. Free Press, New
York, 1983.
Schoonhoven, C. B. 'Problems with contingency
theory: testing assumptions hidden within the
language of contingency theory', Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26, 1981, pp. 349-377.
Segev, E. 'Strategy, strategy making, and
performance-an empirical investigation', Manage-
ment Science, 33, 1987a pp. 258-268.
Segev, E. 'Strategy, strategy making, and performance
in a business game', Strategic Managenent Journial,
8, 1987b, pp. 565-577.
Segev, E. 'A framework for a grounded theory of
corporate policy', Interfaces, 18, 1988, pp. 42-54.
Snow, C. C. and L. G. Hrebiniak. 'Strategy, distinctive
competence, and organizational performance',
Adninistrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1980, pp.
317-366.
Szilagyi, A. D. Jr and D. M. Schweiger. 'Matching
managers to strategies: a review and suggested
framework', Academy of Management Review, 9,
1984, pp. 626-637.
White, R. E. 'Generic business strategies, organi-
zational context and performance: an empirical
investigation', Strategic Management Jou.rnal, 7,
1986, pp. 217-231.
Wright, P. 'MNC-Third World business unit perform-
ance: application of strategic elements', Strategic
Managemenit Journal, 5, 1984, pp. 231-240.
APPENDIX 1: TWO BUSINESS-LEVEL
STRATEGIC TYPOLOGIES
Porter's generic competitive strategies
At the broadest level the firm may adopt one of
three internally consistent generic strategies for
taking offensive or defensive actions to cope
successfully with competitive forces and thereby
yield a superior return on investment. One of
these strategies, focus, is further divided into
cost-focus and differentiation-focus.
Success strategies Failure strategy
Cost Leadership Stuck in the
Middle
Differentiation
Cost-focus
Differentiation-focus
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cost leadership
To achieve overall cost leadership in the industry
through a high relative market share or other
advantages, such as favorable access to raw
materials, a firm will adopt a strategy of aggressive
construction of efficient-scale facilities, tight cost
and overhead control, avoidance of marginal
customer accounts, and cost minimization in
areas such as R&D, service, sales force and
advertising. These measures result in above-
average returns, even in the face of strong
competitive forces, which are reinvested in new
equipment and modern facilities in order to
maintain cost leadership.
DifferentiatiotI
A firm is considered to have an advantage in
terms of differentiation when it offers a product
or a service that is perceived industry-wide to be
unique along several dimensions such as design
or brand image, technology, features, customer
service, and dealer network. Differentiation
provides for brand loyalty by customers, lower
sensitivity to price, increased margins, and entry
barriers. While the firm is not oblivious to costs,
the concept of exclusivity is incompatible with
high market share, and implies a trade-off with
cost position.
Cost-focus
By focusing on a particular consumer group, a
segment of a product line, or a geographic
market, each functional policy being developed
accordingly, the firm is able to serve its chosen,
narrow strategic target more effectively and
efficiently than competitors who are competing
more broadly. The cost-focus strategy requires
capital investment in construction of efficient
scale facilities, tight cost and overhead control,
and cost minimization in areas such as R&D,
service, sales force and advertising. Success
derives from a lower cost position in serving a
narrower target, though the firm is limited in
the overall market share achievable. Cost-focus
involves a trade-off between profitability and
sales volume.
Differentiation-focus
By focusing on a unique product or service the
firm is able to develop a brand or design image.
502 E. Segev
Success derives from better meeting the needs
of the particular target, the advantages and trade-
off constraints delineated for the Differentiation
strategy apply equally to that of Differentiation-
focus.
Stuck in the Middle
A firm 'stuck in the middle' lacks the market
share, capital investment, and resolve to play the
low-cost game, the industry-wide differentiation
necessary to obviate the need for a low-cost
position, or the focus to create differentiation or
a low-cost position in a more limited sphere.
Miles and Snow's adaptation typology
Every firm has to make strategic choices in three
broad areas: the entrepreneurial, the engineering
and the administrative, which together form an
adaptive cycle. On the basis of this adaptive cycle
a typology of four strategic types is described.
Successful types Unsuccessful type
Defenders Reactors
Prospectors
Analyzers
Defenders
The entrepreneurial problem of the Defenders is
to create a stable domain. They do this by
developing single-core technology that is highly
cost-efficient, with the aim of cornering a narrow
segment of the total potential market. There is
little scanning of the environment for new
opportunities and the administrative system is
concerned mainly with intensive planning, cost-
efficiency, centralized control, and the maintain-
ing of stability through a functional structure.
Defenders grow through market penetration and
perhaps some limited product development. Over
time, a true Defender is able to carve out and
maintain a small niche within the industry which
competitors are able to penetrate only with
difficulty.
Prospectors
Prospectors maintain a broad and continuously
developing domain, while monitoring a wide
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
range of environmental conditions and events, in
search of new product and market opportunities.
They create changes in industry through perhaps
sporadic product and market development, while
flexible, prototypical, multiple technologies are
used with a low degree of routinization. The firm
tends towards low formalization and decentralized
control, to retain flexibility.
Analyzers
The firm is interested in locating and exploiting
new product and market opportunities, while
maintaining a firm base of traditional products
and customers, and has, therefore, a dual
technological core encompassing a stable and a
flexible component. Analyzers embark upon new
product and customer ventures, mainly through
imitation, only after their viability has been
demonstrated. In this type of firm, marketing,
engineering and production play an important
role. Because the domain is hybrid and the
organizational structure is a matrix combining
both functional divisions and product-market
divisions.
Reactors
The perpetual instability and resultant poor
performance of the Reactor arises from its
inability to respond appropriately to its environ-
ment. This situation might have been created by
an unclear definition of the firm's strategy, an
inability to shape its structure and processes to
fit the chosen strategy or by maintaining a
strategy which is inappropriate to a changed
environment.
APPENDIX 2: STRATEGIC VARIABLES
Environmental variables
Uncertainty. The amount of information avail-
able to decision-makers for predicting the occur-
rence and nature of environmental factors and
external changes. No information is maximum
uncertainty.
Dynamism. The rapidity and amount of change
in the environment (e.g. changes in customer
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 503
tastes, in production, in service technologies or
in the rate of inflation).
Hostility. The prevalence in the environment of
factors that are negative to the organization and
its interests (e.g. price, product, technological and
distribution competition, regulatory restrictions,
shortages of labor or raw materials and unfavor-
able demographic trends).
Complexity. The number and heterogeneity of
external elements with which the organization
has to contend. In a complex environment a
large number of diverse external elements interact
with and influence the organization; in a simple
environment few external elements have an
impact on the organization.
Strategy
Technological progress. Innovativeness in terms
of the number and novelty of new techniques
which are employed in the production of existing
services and products.
Productlmarket breadth. The number and
heterogeneity of the firm's products and cus-
tomers.
Product innovation. Innovativeness in terms of
the number and novelty of new products and
services introduced.
Quality. The superiority of the firms' products
or services compared to those of competitors, as
perceived by customers.
Price level. The amount of money paid in
exchange for the product, as perceived by
customers with respect to similar products in the
market.
Active marketing. The amount of organizational
resources allocated to marketing and the aware-
ness of management of the marketing concept.
Control system level. The use of rules, regu-
lations, policies, hierarchy or authority, docu-
mentation and other bureaucratic mechanisms to
standardize behavior and to assess performance
(e.g. MIS, employee performance appraisals,
This content downloaded from
195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
quality control, cost and profit centers, budgeting
and cost accounting).
Eqluity vs. debt. The choice between equity or
debt in order to finance the firm in the long term
(a high score is given to a firm financed by
equity).
Long-term financial strength. The ability of the
firm to raise large amounts of financial resources
for long-term investments, either through debt
or owners' equity, at a minimum price.
Resource level. The state and availability of the
firm's human and material resources.
Investment in production. The amount and
frequency of investments in production equipment
and facilities. A high score is given to a firm
with high added value.
Number of technologies. The number of differ-
ent core technologies employed in production
processes.
Professionialization. The level of formal edu-
cation and training of employees. Professionalism
is generally measured as the average number of
years of education of employees, or professionally
qualified people as a percentage of the number
of employees.
Strategy-making
Internal analysis level. The ability of the firm
to assess its performance, focusing on internal
trends and developments.
External analysis and forecasting level. The
ability of the firm to systematically track oppor-
tunities and threats in the environment in order
to design long-range strategies.
Level of risk. The extent to which strategy
makers are willing to make commitments which
involve many resources and risky projects.
Proactiveniess of decisions. The extent to which
the firm tries to shape its environment, as
opposed to merely reacting to trends in the
504 E. Segev

environment (e.g. introducing new products, Performance

finding new markets and lobbying).
Profibility. Return on equity with respect to
other firms in the industry.
Structure
Market share. The percentage of the relevant
Size of the strategy-making team. The number market held by the firm.
of main strategic actors in the organization.
Rate of growth. Of total sales with respect to
industry norms and past performance.
Centralization. The hierarchical level that has
the authority to make a strategic decision. When
Liquidity. The ability of the organization to
the decision-making authority is kept at the top
raise a large amount of cash on short notice,
level, the organization is centralized; when
measured by the quick and acid ratio.
decisions are delegated to lower organizational
levels, the organization is decentralized. Operational efficiency. The degree of utilization
of resources to produce output, measured as the
Mechanism. The extent to which the internal ratio of inputs to outputs. If one organization
organization of the formalized management struc- can achieve a given production level with
ture is characterized by rules, procedures and fewer resources than another organization, it is
clear hierarchy of authority. In a mechanistic described as more efficient.
organization the structure is highly formalized.
In a non-mechanistic-organic (low-score) organi-
Organizational characteristics
zation, the internal organization is much looser,
free-flowing and adaptive; rules and regulations
Size. Total sales, total assets, and the number
are flexible and usually no written criteria exist,
of people in the organization.
and people are expected to find their own way
through the system. Age. As compared to competitors in the indus-
try.

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Analysis of Two Business-level Strategic Typologies 505

APPENDIX 3: STRATEGY EVALUATION FORM

Student: Date:
Evaluated Strategy: Typology:

THE STRATEGY SHOULD BE EVALUATED RELATIVELY TO OTHER STRATEGIES IN THIS TYPOLOGY ONLY ....

Maximum Mean Minimum No data

1 Uncertainty 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
2 Dynamism 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
3 Hostility 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
4 Complexity 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

5 Technological Progress 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
6 Product/Market Breadth 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
7 Product Inn.ovation 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
8 Quality 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 Price Level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
10 Active Marketing 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
11 Control System Level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
12 Equity vs. Debt 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
13 Long-range Financial
Strength 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
14 Resources Level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
15 Investment in Production 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
16 Number of Technologies 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
17 Professionalization 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

18 Internal Analysis Level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

19 External Analysis and
Forecasting Level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
20 Level of Risk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
21 Proactive Managerial Style 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

22 Size of Strategy-Making
Team 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
23 Centralization 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
24 Mechanism 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

25 Profitability 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
26 Market Share 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
27 Rate of Growth 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
28 Operational Efficiency 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
29 Liquidity 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

30 Organizational Size 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
31 Organizational Age 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Detail the explicit and implicit assumptions of the typology and this strategy with regard to:

Industry Type:
Industry Concentration:
Industry Life Cycle Stage:
Top Management Values and Main Objective:
Type of Ownership:

This content downloaded from

195.43.22.135 on Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms