In Part I of this paper, published in O.S. 7/1, we compared the strategic clusters that emerged from a taxonomy of consumer durable businesses to three strategies suggested by Porter (1980). We discovered clusters that pursued combinations of Porter's differentiation and cost leadership strategies, and also those that did not. The purpose of this paper is to compare the performance of these groups of clusters, discuss the differences in strategic behaviour among them that may explain performance, and elicit some normative implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Buzzell, R.D., B.T. Gale, and R.G.M. Sultan1975'Market share — a key to profitability'Harvard Business Review53: 97-106.
2.
Dess, Gregory, and Peter S. Davis1984'Porter's generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance'Academy of Management Journal27: 467-488.
3.
Hambrick, Donald C.1983a 'High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: a contingency approach'Academy of Management Journal26: 687-707.
4.
Miller, Danny, and Peter H. Fnesen1980'Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation'Academy of Management Journal23: 591-614.
5.
Miller, Danny, and Peter H Friesen1984Organizations: a quantum viewEnglewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
6.
Porter, Michael E.1980Competitive strategyNew York : Free Press.
7.
Scherer, F.M.1980Industrial market structure and economic performanceBoston: Houghton-Mifflin.
