Editing Porter's generic strategies (section)

==Criticisms of generic strategies==
{{inline|section|date=April 2025}}
Several commentators have questioned the use of generic strategies, claiming that they lack specificity, lack flexibility, and are limiting, and raising empirical challenges to Porter's model.

Miller questions the notion of being "caught in the middle".<ref name="MillerD">Miller, D., "The generic strategy trap" in ''The Journal of Business Strategy'' 13(1):37-41, 1992</ref> He claims that there is a viable middle ground between strategies. Many companies, for example, have entered a market as a niche player and gradually expanded. According to Baden-Fuller and Stopford (1992) the most successful companies are the ones that can resolve what they call "the dilemma of opposites". Furthermore, Reeves and Routledge's (2013) study of entrepreneurial spirit demonstrated this is a key factor in organisation success, differentiation and cost leadership were the least important factors.

However, contrary to the rationalisation of Porter, contemporary research has shown evidence of successful firms practising such a "hybrid strategy”.<ref>Hambrick, D, "An empirical typology of mature industrial product environments", ''Academy of Management Journal'', 26: 213-230. (1983)</ref> Research writings of Davis (1984 cited by Prajogo 2007, p.&nbsp;74) state that firms employing the hybrid business strategy (Low cost and differentiation strategy) outperform the ones adopting one generic strategy. Sharing the same view point, Hill (1988 cited by Akan et al. 2006, p.&nbsp;49) challenged Porter's concept regarding mutual exclusivity of low cost and differentiation strategy and further argued that successful combination of those two strategies will result in sustainable competitive advantage. As to Wright and other (1990 cited by Akan et al. 2006, p.&nbsp;50) multiple business strategies are required to respond effectively to any environment condition. In the mid to late 1980s where the environments were relatively stable there was no requirement for flexibility in business strategies but survival in the rapidly changing, highly unpredictable present market contexts will require flexibility to face any contingency (Anderson 1997, Goldman et al. 1995, Pine 1993 cited by Radas 2005, p.&nbsp;197). After eleven years Porter revised his thinking and accepted the fact that hybrid business strategy could exist (Porter cited by Prajogo 2007, p.&nbsp;70) and writes in the following manner.

Although Porter had a fundamental rationalisation in his concept about the invalidity of hybrid business strategy, the highly volatile and turbulent market conditions will not permit survival of rigid business strategies since long-term establishment will depend on the agility and the quick responsiveness towards market and environmental conditions. Market and environmental turbulence will make drastic implications on the root establishment of a firm. If a firm's business strategy could not cope with the environmental and market contingencies, long-term survival becomes unrealistic. Diverging the strategy into different avenues with the view to exploit opportunities and avoid threats created by market conditions will be a pragmatic approach for a firm.<ref name="MillerD"/><ref>Murray, A.I. "A contingency view of Porter's "generic strategies", ''Academy of Management Review'', 13: 390-400, 1988</ref><ref name=wright>Wright, P., "A refinement of Porter's strategies", ''Strategic Management Journal'', 8: 93-101, 1987</ref> Critical analysis conducted separately for cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy identifies elementary value in both strategies in creating and sustaining a competitive advantage. Consistent and superior performance over competition could be reached with stronger foundations in the event “hybrid strategy” is adopted. Depending on the market and competitive conditions, hybrid strategy should be adjusted regarding the extent which each generic strategy (cost leadership or differentiation) should be given priority in practice.