Corporate competitive strategies in a transitional manufacturing industry: an empirical study

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to take a strategic approach to analyze how the US technical textile companies manage their business operations and to determine whether there are differences on competitive priorities between high‐ and low‐performing companies. Design/methodology/approach A competitive priority model consisting of four latent constructs – low cost, quality, delivery performance, and flexibility – was utilized to construct the analysis. Primary data were collected through a survey of senior executives in the US technical textile companies. Using 202 eligible survey returns, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis within structural equation modeling were carried out to assess adequacy of the measurements and validity of the model. Findings The competitive priority model is proven valid and the four constructs account for the most variance in corporate competitive strategies. High‐performing companies placed greater emphasis on quality and delivery performance strategies than low cost strategy in order to build capabilities for product or service differentiation; in contrast, low‐performing companies gave equal weight to all four competitive capabilities. The lack of clear emphasis on strategies could be one of the reasons for a relatively low business performance. Research limitations/implications The study provides a springboard for future studies of corporate competitive strategies and its relationships with other key decisions and outcomes. Practical implications The deployment of appropriate strategies is imperative to achieve superior business performance and, perhaps, just to survive. Originality/value The paper represents the first empirical investigation into corporate strategy issues in the US technical textile sector. The methodology may be transferred to other industrial sectors.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.