Generic Strategy Research: Application of LISREL and Smallest Space Analysis

  • Suresh Kotha
  • Bhatt Vadlamani
  • Anil Nair


The concept of generic strategies remains the principal framework in discussions of business-level strategy formulation in research and teaching. Given that generic strategy typologies (e.g., Porter, 1980; Mintzberg, 1988) represent latent constructs, researchers have predominantly employed Factor Analysis to identify underlying dimensions among observed variables (i.e., generic competitive methods). However for the generic strategy research stream to progress, statistical techniques that examine the relative “goodness-of-fit” of different typologies to empirical field data are sorely needed. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the appropriateness and application of LISREL and Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) for generic strategy research. Specifically, we argue that the use of these techniques allow researchers to clarify and crystallize some of the assertions underlying the concept of generic strategies and to test them more rigorously than in the past.


Generic Strategy Competitive Method Strategy Construct Cost Leadership Interpoint Distance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ansoff, Igor (1965), Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Bollen, K. A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., George, J. M., Roberson, L., and Webster, J. (1989), `Measuring affect at work: Confirmatory analyses of competing mood structures with conceptual linkages to cortical regulatory systems,’ Journal of personality and social psychology, 57, pp 1091–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calingo, L. M. R. (1989), Environmental determinants of generic competitive strategies, Human Relations, 42, pp 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dess, G. G. and Davis, P. S. (1984), `Porter’s generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance,’ Academy of Management Review, 27, pp 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guttman, L. (1968), A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, pp 469–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hambrick, D. (1983), `An empirical typology of mature industrial product environments,’ Academy of Management Journal, 26, pp 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jöreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1986), LISREL VI: User’s Guide, Mooresville, IN: ScientificGoogle Scholar
  9. Karni, E. S. and Levin, J. (1972), The use of smallest space analysis in studying scale structure: An application to the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 56, 4, pp 341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim, L. and Lim, Y. (1988), Environment, Generic Strategies, and Performance in a rapidly developing country: A taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 4, pp 802–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kotha, S., Dunbar, R. L. M. and Bird, A. (1995), Strategic action generation: A comparison of emphasis placed on generic competitive methods by US and Japanese managers. Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotha, S. and Vadlamani, B. L. (1995), Assessing generic strategies: An empirical investigation of two competing typologies in discrete manufacturing industries. Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp 7583.Google Scholar
  13. Lingoes, J. C. (1973), The Guttman-Lingoes Nonmetric Program Series. Mathesis Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  14. Long, J. C. (1983), Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. (1978), Organization Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H. (1986), Porter’s (1980), generic strategies and performance: An empirical examination with American Data. Organization Studies, 7,3 pp 255–261.Google Scholar
  17. Mintzberg, H. (1988), `Generic Strategies: Toward a comprehensive framework,’ Advances in Strategic Management, 5, pp 1–67.Google Scholar
  18. Nayyar, P. (1993), On the evidence of competitive strategy: Evidence from a large multiproduct US firm. Academy of Management Journal. 36, 6: pp 1652–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rindskopf, D. and Rose, T. (1988), ‘Some theory and application of confirmatory second-order factor analysis,’ Multivariate Behavioral Research.Google Scholar
  21. Robinson, R.. B. and Pearce, J. A. (1988), `Planned patterns of strategic behavior and their relationship to business unit performance,’ Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlesinger, I. M. and Guttman, L. (1969), Smallest space analysis of intelligence and achievement tests. Psychological Bulletin, 71, pp 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shapira, Z. & Zevulun, E. (1979), On the use of facet analysis in organizational behavior research: some conceptual considerations and an example. Organizational behavior and human performance, 23, pp 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Segev, E. (1989), A systematic comparative analysis and synthesis of two business-level strategic typologies. Strategic Management Journal, 10, pp 487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zajac, E. J. and Shortell, S. M. (1989), Changing generic strategies: Likelihood, Direction, and Performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 5: pp 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suresh Kotha
    • 1
  • Bhatt Vadlamani
    • 2
  • Anil Nair
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management and Organization School of Business AdministrationUniversity of WashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ManagementUniversity of MassachusettsBostonUSA
  3. 3.Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations