Abstract:

Despite its widely recognized scientific and pedagogical value, Porter’s theory of generic competitive strategies has faced repeated criticism for three main issues. First, the ambiguous and sometimes conflicting definitions of key concepts. Second, the inaccurate attribution of risk and low performance to mixed strategies, as well as Porter’s inadequate responses when defending the supposed “failures” in his model. Third, the neglect of the competitive environment when determining strategic choices. At the teaching level, John Hendry, professor at the University of Cambridge, was among the first to highlight the confusion that arises in the classroom when competitive strategies are explained solely from Porter’s perspective. Nonetheless, he also emphasized that despite its limitations, Porter’s model should not be dismissed, given its significant influence in understanding the overall strategic process.

However, these criticisms have rarely been presented together or in an organized manner (or even merely explained), which hinders students, entrepreneurs, researchers, and practitioners from fully appreciating both the strengths of the original model to understand the strategic process, as well as its drawbacks and current evolution. Thus, by shifting focus from an internal to a client-oriented approach and incorporating the competitive environment emphasized in future evolutions of such model, new ventures could better interpret market dynamics, anticipate competitors’ actions, understand client preferences, and identify the strategic path most suitable for their context. Consequently, rather than relying on rigid theoretical prescriptions, with this paper we aim that students unleash their full potential designing more adaptive strategies that integrate cost efficiency, but also concepts such as differentiation, pricing, and environmental awareness to ultimately achieve sustainable competitive advantages.

Keywords:

Porter’s limitations, entrepreneurial application, competitive strategies, strategic drawbacks.