The purpose of this paper is to investigate empirically whether a hybrid, compared with other forms of competitive advantage, contributes to better business performance.
Based on 105 food manufacturing firms in Greece, a European Union (EU) member state, this study performs a factor analysis, a cluster analysis and an analysis of variance.
This study provides evidence in favour of the hybrid as the best‐performing form of competitive advantage for Greek food firms. Specifically, the findings show pure (the cost‐based nichers: 36 firms), combined (the hybridists: 49 firms) and stuck‐in‐the‐middle (the confused strategists: 20 firms) strategic alternatives that differ in terms of performance.
Research on Porter's dominant paradigm within Europe is surprisingly limited. Given the call for further research on competitive strategy to focus on European firms, this Greek study extends Porter's original model and represents one of the few studies to examine the relationship between hybrid strategies and performance.
Managers should keep in mind that hybrid strategies are usually better and never worse than pure and stuck‐in‐the‐middle alternatives. Emphasis on all dimensions of the hybrid form may be a safe and rewarding option for Greek food players to compete at home against global players.
This study provides new evidence on hybrid strategies within Europe, a subject that lacks sufficient foundation. Despite the contradictory results obtained elsewhere on the Porter‐based perspective since 1980, the empirical evidence within a European country, Greece, suggests a pleasant surprise.
