PORTER'S GENERIC COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES AND RELATION WITH THE PERFORMANCE: A SAMPLE OF AKSARAY ORGANIZED INDUSTRIAL ZONE

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 5, 11 - 22, 01.12.2016

Ali Aykut Peker Şefik Özdemir Gökhan Kerse Talip Arsu

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to measure the impact of generic strategies, proposed Porter (1980) and generally accepted in the literature, to the businesses performance. Porter stated that the businesses need to apply the generic strategies successfully in order to provide sustainable competitive advantage against their competitors. Generic strategies are discussed in three parts as cost leadership, differentiation, and concentration. Porter argued that businesses cannot reach their goals in case they applied simultaneously three strategies and so they need specialization by taking one in the foreground among three strategies according to the sector’s current state. In this context, the aim of the study is to evaluate cost leadership strategy in terms of strategic management accounting. Quantitative research methods are used during the implementation phase. The study is applied to businesses operating in Aksaray Organized Industrial Zone, and the data are collected by surveys and “Generic Strategies Scale" developed by Yamin, Gunasekaran and Mavondo is used in the study. In this study, business performances are discussed subjectively because of unwillingness of business about sharing their financial information. Therefore, the "Business Performance" scale that its validity and reliability proven by Eroglu (2003) is used to measure of business performance. Business performance is discussed in four dimensions which are about product, customers, employee, sales and profitability

Anahtar Kelimeler

Generic Strategies, Cost Leadership, Business Performance

Porter’in Jenerik Rekabet Stratejileri ve Performans İlişkisi; Aksaray İli Organize Sanayi Bölgesi Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Porter (1980) tarafından geliştirilen ve literatürde genel kabul gören Jenerik stratejilerin işletme performansına etkisinin ölçülmesi amaçlanmıştır. Porter; işletmelerin rakiplerine karşı sürdürülebilir rekabet avantajı sağlayabilmeleri için tanıtım stratejileri başarı ile uygulamaları gerektiğini belirtmiştir. Jenerik stratejileri kendi içerisinde maliyet liderliği, farklılaşma ve odaklanma olarak üç bölümde ele almıştır. Porter üç stratejinin eş zamanlı olarak uygulanması durumunda işletmelerin arzu ettikleri hedeflere ulaşamayacaklarını ve üç farklı strateji arasından, bulunulan sektörün durumuna göre bir tanesinin ön plana çıkartılıp o noktada uzmanlaşmaları gerektiğini savunmuştur. Performans ise bir işin yerine getirilme düzeyi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. İşletmelerin performansları değerlendirilirken verimlilik, etkinlik, üretkenlik ve karlılık gibi nesnel ölçütlerle birlikte kullanılmasının yanı sıra işletmelerin finansal bilgilerini paylaşmak istememeleri nedeniyle öznel olarak da değerlendirilebilmektedir. Araştırmada uygulama aşamasında nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma Aksaray ilinde OSB’de faaliyet gösteren işletmelere uygulanmış ve veri toplama aracı olarak anket tekniği, ölçek olarak ise Yamin, Gunasekaran ve Mavondo (1999) tarafından geliştirilen “Jenerik Strateji Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. İşletmelerin finansal bilgilerini paylaşmak istememeleri nedeniyle işletmelerin performansları sübjektif olarak ele alınmış ve bu doğrultuda da Eroğlu (2003) tarafından geçerliliği güvenilirliği kanıtlanmış “İşletme Performansı” ölçeği kullanılmıştır. İşletme performansı ürüne, müşteriye, çalışanlara, satış ve karlılığa yönelik olarak dört boyutta ele alınmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Jenerik Stratejiler, Maliyet Liderliği, İşletme Performansı

Kaynakça

• Acquaah, M., & Yasai-Ardekani, M. (2008). Does the implementation of a combination competitive strategy yield incremental performance benefits? A new perspective from a transition economy in Sub- Saharan Africa. Journal of Business Research(61), 346-354.
• Akingbade, W. A. (2014). Competitive Strategies and Improved Performance of Selected Nigeria Telecommunication Companies. Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation (JEMI), 4(10), 143-167.
• Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Acquaah, M. (2008). Manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy and firm performance: An empirical study in a developing economy environment. International journal of production economics(111), 575-592.
• Baroto, M. B., Abdullah, M. M., & Wan, H. L. (2012). Hybrid Strategy: A New Strategy for Competitive Advantage. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(20), 120-133.
• Bordean, O. N., Borza, A. I., L.Nistor, R., & Mitra, C. S. (2010). The Use of Michael Porter’s Generic Strategies in the Romanian Hotel Industry. International Journal of Trade,Economics and Finance, 1(2), 173-178.
• Brenes, E. R., Montoya, D., & Ciravegna, L. (2014). Differentiation strategies in emerging markets: The case of Latin American agribusinesses. Journal of Business Research, 847-855.
• Chan, R. Y.-k., & Wong, Y. (1999). Bank generic strategies: does Porter’s theory apply in an international banking center. International Business Review(8), 561-590.
• Duman, H., Özpeynirci, R., Yücenurşen, M., & Apak, İ. (2014). Girişimcilik Açısından Porter’ın Jenerik (Rekabet) Stratejileri ve İşletme Performansına Etkisi. ICE 14 VI International Congress on Entrepreneurship, (s. 515-522). Bishkek/Kyrgyzstan.
• Eroğlu, E. (2003). Toplam Kalite Yönetimi Uygulamalarının Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli ile Analizi (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı Sayısal Yöntemler Bilim Dalı.
• Gibcus, P., & Kemp, R. (2003). Strategy and small firm performance. Zoetermeer: SCientific AnaLysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
• Jiri, D., Stanislav, T., & Petr, P. (2014). Generic strategies and organizational performance: Evidence from Czech Business Environment. Mathematics and Computers in Contemporary Science, 72-77.
• Kimatu, D. K., & Bichanga, O. W. (2014). Competitive Strategies and the Non Financial Performance of Micro Enterprises in Kenya. International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations(2), 160-186.
• Kunc, M. (2010). Revisiting Porter's Generic Strategies for Competitive Environments Using System Dynamics. Routledge Research in Strategic Management, 152-170.
• Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C. ve Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2006). The Effect of 'Simplicity' on the Strategy-Performance Relationship: A Note. Journal of Management Studies, 7(43), 1583-1604.
• Manteghi, N., & Zohrabi, A. (2011). A proposed comprehensive framework for formulating strategy: a Hybrid of balanced scorecard, SWOT analysis, porter`s generic strategies and Fuzzy quality function deployment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences(15), 2068-2073.
• Morschett, D., Swoboda, B., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2006). Competitive strategies in retailing—an investigation of the applicability of Porter’s framework for food retailers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services(13), 275-287.
• Nandakumar, M., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2011). Generic strategies and performance – evidence from manufacturing firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 3(60), 222-251.
• Nayyar, P. R. (1993). On The Measurement of Competitive Strategy: Evidence from a Large Multiproduct U.S. Firm. Academy of Management Journal(6), 1652-1669.
• Ortega, M. J. (2010). Competitive strategies and firm performance: Technological capabilities' moderating roles. Journal of Business Research(63), 1273-1281.
• Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy Techniques For Analyzing Industries And Competitors. New York: The Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating And Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1997, Temmuz-Ağustos). How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 1- 10.
• R.Awade, P. (2014). Implementation of combination strategy based on porter’s model: success built on lost opportunity in industrial lubricants. Asian Journal of Management Research, 4(4), 699-710.
• Sahn, M. F., Al-A’Ali, E., & Yacout, O. M. (2013). Matching Competitive Strategy To Performance: An Exploratory Investigation In The Emerging Economy Of Bahrain. Journal of Global Strategic Management(13), 64-78.
• Tanwar, R. (2013). Porter’s Generic Competitive Strategies. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR- JBM), 1(15), 11-17.
• Ülgen, H., & Mirze, S. (2013). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim (Cilt 7). İstanbul: Beta.
• Yamin, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Mavondo, F. T. (1999). Relationship between generic strategies, competitive advantage and organizational performance: an empirical analysis. Technovation(19), 507-518.
• Yaşar, F. (2010). Competitive Strategies And Firm Performance: Case Study On Gaziantep Carpeting Sector. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 7(14), 309-324.