Business Strategy versus Performance Trade-offs

Abstract

The tea industry in India is facing turbulent weather, both literally and figuratively. This study has mapped out competitive strategy in the Indian tea industry based on a sample of the 14 largest players. It is found that important trade-offs between the business-level strategy adopted and the performance objective may help the firms in this industry move ahead in a more focused manner. It appears that the simultaneous pursuance of profitability and growth/market position in this industry may be counter-productive. But, aiming for growth may also help attain market position. Profitability appears to stem from enhanced scope (higher distribution and international presence) and increased differentiation (higher advertising). Higher levels of efficiency and a lower level of asset parsimony too seem to favour higher profitability. The strategy of differentiation appears to be helping achieve both growth and market position. Cost leadership measures may also lead to growth, though not to a very high degree of market position.

Keywords

India business strategy performance competition mapping

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asopa, V.N. 2007. ‘Tea industry of India—the cup that cheers has tears’, Working Paper No. 2007-07-02. Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad .

Bain, J.S. 1956. Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

Borg, I. and P.J.F. Groenen . 2008. Modern Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Springer .

Cameron, K.S. and D.A. Whetten . 1983. ‘Organizational effectiveness: One model or several?’, in K.S. Cameron and D.A. Whetten (eds), Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Methods. New York: Academic Press .

Caves, R.E. and M.E. Porter . 1977. ‘ From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new competition ’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2): 421–41 .

Child, J. 1972. ‘ Organizational structure, environments, and performance: The Role of Strategic Choice ’, Sociology, 6(1): 1–22 .

Cyert, R.M. and J.G. March . 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Day, D.L. , W.S. DeSarbo and T.A. Oliva . 1987. ‘ Strategy maps: A spatial representation of intra-industry competitive strategy ’, Management Science, 33(12): 1534–51 .

DeSarbo, W. , K. Jedidi , K. Cool and D. Schendel . 1990. ‘ Simultaneous multidimensional unfolding and cluster analysis: An investigation of strategic groups ’, Marketing Letters, 2(2): 129–46 .

10.

Drucker, P.F. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Brothers .

11.

Hofer, C.W. 1975. ‘ Towards a contingency theory of business strategy ’, Academy of Management Journal, 18(4): 784–810 .

12.

Hsueh, S. and H. Kang . 2007. ‘ Cointegration relationships of strategy variables among firms within strategic groups ’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(1): 61–73 .

13.

MacMillan, I.C. , D.C. Hambrick and D.L. Day . 1982. ‘ The product portfolio and profitability—A PIMS-based analysis of industrial-product businesses ’, Academy of Management Journal, 25(4): 733–55 .

14.

Porter, M.E. 1979. ‘ The structure within industries and companies’ performance ’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 61(2): 214–27 .

15.

Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press .

16.

Porter, M.E. 1981. ‘ The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management ’, Academy of Management Review, 6(4): 609–20 .

17.

Quinn, J.B. 1980. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin .

18.

Schendel, D.E. and C.W. Hofer (eds). 1979. Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. Boston: Little, Brown .

19.

Scherer, F.M. 1980. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company .

20.

Tea Board of India official website. http://teaboard.gov.in (accessed 3 May 2009).

21.

Venkatraman, N. and V. Ramanujam . 1986. ‘ Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches ’, Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 801–14 .