|
Since each member of Our
Community is furthering the research agenda, the topics
on this page are continuously up for discussion in the Discussion
Forum, and we hope to continuously update this page
from your discussion. Click on any heading below to find
out more about the Strategy as Practice research agenda.
Table of Contents (click to move)
Origins
Strategy-as-practice (s-as-p) research is interested in the activities that constitute strategy making.
The turn towards practices in the strategy literature echoes an increased interest in human practices
in the social sciences (Schatzki et al., 2001) and, more recently, in organisational and management
research. Practice perspectives have become influential in understanding organisational life, for
instance in the areas of accounting (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007), and technology (Orlikowski, 1992; 2000;
Orr, 1996). S-as-p also responds to calls for research into the minutiae of organisational life and
the practices that constitute the ‘internal life of process’ (Brown and Duguid, 2000; Chia and MacKay,
2007; Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). It particularly resonates with Weick’s (1979:
44) suggestion to make more extravagant use of verbs and gerunds, such as ‘to organise’ and ‘organising’,
and to become ‘stingy’ in the use of nouns such as ‘organisation’ in order to re-envisage organisations
as processes rather than states. In this vein, s-as-p research “...shifts concern from the core competence
of the corporation to the practical competence of the manager as strategist” (Whittington, 1996: 732).
The departure from such static and reified concepts in practice research is intended to bring back the
actor into the research landscape (Whittington, 2006). Practice research subsumes a plurality of interests
and research methodologies and methods. It draws upon – but is not limited to - sociological and
philosophical developments related to practice theory, such as the works of Bourdieu (1990), de Certeau
(1984), Giddens (1984), Schatzki (1996; 2002), and Sztompka (1991). Schatzki (1997, p. 284) argues that
practice-theoretical approaches are united by the proposition that practical understanding and
intelligibility are articulated in practices; they are situated in manifolds of activity. Similarly, Chia
and Holt (2006: 640) highlight that the practice turn puts not the individual, but “...relationality,
action, interaction and habituation at the centre of social analysis”.
S-as-p research is gaining momentum. There are currently more than 2,800 members in this online forum and five special
journal editions have been published, focusing explicitly s-as-p research: European Management Review (McKiernan and Carter,
2004); Human Relations (Balogun et al., 2007); Long Range Planning (Cailluet and Whittington, 2008); Journal of Management
Studies (Johnson et al., 2003); Revue Francaise de Gestion (Rouleau et al., 2007). Moreover, there are four foundation books
(Golsorkhi, 2006; Jarzabkowski, 2005; Johnson et al., 2007, Golsorkhi et al., 2009) setting out key characteristics, as well
as methodological and philosophical implications of this perspective.
This forum is designed to further disseminate s-as-p research and to provide up-to-date information about practice related
research and events. It also offers a platform for members to raise questions, share ideas, and solve problems through
interacting with the online s-as-p research community. We would like to invite you to join this forum
and explore s-as-p in a journey through our online platform or by browsing up to date working papers
contributing to the growing field of s-as-p . You can contribute to the discussion by posting your own questions
or ideas to the forum or by submitting a working paper for publication in this forum. In addition, you may want to read through
one, or all five special issues and many journal articles within s-as-p. This forum also provides up-to-date information about
workshops and symposia alongside standard conference tracks at the Academy of Management (AOM), British Academy of Management
(BAM), European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS) and Strategic Management Society (SMS) where cutting edge practice
related research is discussed.
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
Studying strategy-as-practice
The practice perspective places emphasis on “...the detailed processes and practices which constitute the day-to-day
activities of organizational life and which relate to strategic outcomes. Our focus therefore is on micro-activities that,
while often invisible to traditional strategy research, nevertheless can have significant consequences for organizations and
those who work in them” (Johnson et al., 2003: 3). From a strategy-as-practice (s-as-p) perspective, strategy has been
defined “as a situated, socially accomplished activity, while strategizing comprises those actions, interactions and
negotiations of multiple actors and the situated practices that they draw upon in accomplishing that activity”
(Jarzabkowski et al., 2007: 7-8). S-as-p thus focuses on what actors do rather than what an organization has (Johnson et al., 2003;
Whittington, 2006). This emphasises human activity and human and non-human actors, who are argued to be disregarded in the
traditional strategic management literature. S-as-p research thus also raises the question how, if at all, human action in
organisation is structured and how strategy making is implicated in ongoing, organised practices (Chia, 2004; Chia and MacKay, 2007).
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
Linking micro and macro
Strategy-as-practice (s-as-p) research is interested in the detailed micro activities that constitute strategising and the link
between these activities and wider social organisational and social contexts, also referred to as macro. S-as-p research, inter
alia, draws upon sociological approaches (e.g. Bourdieu, 1990; Giddens, 1984; Schatzki, 2005) that attempt to overcome the
micro-macro dualisms that characterise orthodox organisational research. One integrative framework developed within the s-as-p
literature defines its broad research parameters as studying: practitioners (those people who do the work of strategy); practices
(the social, symbolic and material tools through which strategy work is done); and praxis (the flow of activity in which strategy
is accomplished) (Jarzabkowski, 2005; et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Whittington, 2006). These three elements represent an
entry into the study of strategizing activity that differs from existing ‘top-down’ approaches that work with reified notions of
‘the firm’ and of ‘strategy’. S-as-p approaches therefore seek to relate micro-phenomena to wider social contexts, in which they
are embedded.
Key Questions
- How can we conceptualise strategising activity and how is it structured (or organised)?
- How can we research and understand the links, reciprocity and exchanging patterns of influence between the
micro and macro practice of strategy?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
Outcomes
The study of ‘outcomes’ has traditionally been a dominant theme in strategy research. There has also been an increasing
call for a stronger focus on outcomes within strategy-as-practice (s-as-p) (Johnson et al., 2007; Whittington, 2007). However,
s-as-p research attempts to avoid the ‘straightjacket’ of performance measurement prevalent in the traditional strategic
management literature (Bettis, 1991). In contrast, s-as-p is not only concerned with the ‘measurement’ of to firm performance,
but to also take seriously how those activities at the micro level may influence a firm’s performance (e.g. Ambrosini et al., 2007).
Thereby, outcomes of studies are likely to depend on the analytical focus and unit of analysis. Based on current s-as-p research,
Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009) distinguished between personal/individual, group, strategising process and organisational as well
as institutional outcomes. A focus on outcomes helps to conduct detailed analyses of how strategists’ actions construct particular
outcomes; as well as develop explanations of variation to examine how differences in what strategists do explains variations in the
outcomes that are constructed.
Key Questions
- What outcomes may be consequential to the firm at all levels of an organization? (see Jarzabkowski et al., 2007)
- How could we study outcomes at a more micro level without losing focus of wider social factors within which such
outcomes emerge?
- What other outcomes could there be additional to Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009)?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
Strategy-as-practice research agenda
The s-as-p research agenda addresses some of the challenges s-as-p may face in future. In the s-as-p track at the 2008 EGOS
conference, key issues for future s-as-p research were identified relating to the need to study lower-level staff,
self-understandings of strategists, the absence of strategy discourse (especially in entrepreneurial settings), the relation of
strategists with other organisational staff, the problem of ‘where to look for strategy’, the identification and analysis of
strategy skills, the conceptual difficulty of defining the concepts of ‘strategy’ and ‘practice’, as well as the differences
between ‘etic’ and ‘emic’ research approaches in s-as-p. Below, you will find a short syllabus of key research questions excerpted
from various journal articles. We invite you to join the debate!
Key Questions
- What is strategy? (see Jarzabkowski et al., 2007)
- Who is a strategist; and what do strategists do? (see Jarzabkowski et al., 2007; Whittington, 2003)
- How is strategising influenced by the social context? (see Whittington, 2007)
- What are the common tools and techniques of strategising and how are they used? (see Jarzabkowski, 2004; Seidl, 2007;
Whittington, 2003)
- How can existing organization and social theory inform an analysis of strategy-as-practice? (see Jarzabkowski et al., 2007)
- How do strategy workshops and meetings, or formal committees influence strategising?
- What is the role of extra-organisational actors on strategising? (see Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009)
S-as-p is pluralistic and open-ended subsuming a variety of research interests and methods of inquiry. Above, we highlighted
some of the questions and key issues shaping the future development of s-as-p research. We invite you to contribute to this
development and help to shape the s-as-p agenda.
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
Methodological issues
Practice research subsumes a plurality of interests (Whittington et al., 2003) and approaches such as ethnography
(Samra-Fredericks, 2003), case studies (Regner, 2003; Salvato, 2003), activity theory (Jarzabkowski, 2003), discourse analysis
(Fairclough, 2005; Mantere and Vaara, forthcoming), cognitive studies (Clarke and Mackaness, 2001; Eden, 1994; Porac and Thomas,
1994; Weick and Roberts, 1993), and quantitative research (Langley, 1989). Much of the plurality exhibited by the strategy practice
field is owed to the ambiguity of the term ‘practice’ and the meta-theoretical assumptions underlying multiple versions of
the concept (Buerger and Gadinger, 2005; Chia, 2004). While methodological issues have so far not been a key focus of s-as-p
research, the need for innovative and creative approaches has been recognised (Balogun et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2007).
Moreover, Chia and MacKay (2007) suggest that that, rather than methodological concerns, it is the theoretical unit of analysis
that must be revised placing priority on activities and practices, instead of individuals and organizations and their processes.
However, s-as-p research is open to a variety of research methodologies and methods to the study of strategic practices,
inviting scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds to contribute to our understanding of the actions and routines that
constitute strategising.
Key Questions
- How can strategising activities be studied while taking seriously the commitments of a s-as-p perspective.
- Which methodologies and methods are suited to study micro activities and link those with wider organisational
and social factors?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
Current debate
Recent debate centred on the concept of practice, thematising the many different understandings of the term held within the s-as-p
field (Chia, 2004; Carter et al., 2008). This is not surprising, given the various philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of
practices (e.g. Jarzabkowski, 2003; Chia, 2004; Schatzki, 2006; Seidl, 2007). Similarly, Seidl (2007) highlights misunderstandings
evident in the strategy field stemming from a multiplicity of differing strategy discourses which use the same strategy labels.
There is also a lively debate about the extent to which s-as-p is distinct from traditional strategy process research (Chia
and Mackay, 2007). While Carter et al. (2008) claim that the term practice is used interchangeably for process and Langley
(2007) views s-as-p as a category of process, others suggest that s-as-p differs from traditional process research in its view
of agency. Its focus lies on the production and reproduction of strategic action, rather than seeking to explain strategic
change and firm performance, and it affords a perspective on strategy at multiple levels of action and interaction rather
than at the level of the firm (Jarzabkowski, 2005; 2008; Johnson et al., 2003; et al., 2007; Whittington, 2007). Above all,
it is suggested that s-as-p provides insights beyond studying organizational processes and embeds strategising activities in
the wider practices of societies (Whittington, 2006; 2007).
Key Questions
- What other debates would further the strategy as practice field?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
Teaching strategy-as-practice
Increasing interest has been given to s-as-p research informing curriculum. While this is an important aspect of academic practice
and integral in developing s-as-p into mainstream curricula, issues relating to teaching s-as-p have not been discussed in detail.
Thus, there is an ongoing debate via the Domeus discussion forum to develop s-as-p teaching. Additionally, there was a PDW at
the Academy of Management Conference 2007. This material is online under [
http://www.s-as-p.org/news_view.php?id=2]. If you would like to contribute to this ongoing debate please see the
Domeus discussion forum.
Key Questions
- What strategy courses are being taught that might link to a strategy as practice agenda?
- What case material and teaching methods are applicable to a strategy as practice agenda?
- How can research in this field be used to challenge, question and contribute to current strategy teaching?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda on
strategyaspractice@gmail.com.
[top]
References
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2007). Management accounting as practice. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 1.1: 5-31.
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C. and Burton-Taylor, S. (2007). Inter-team coordination activities as a source of customer satisfaction.
Human Relations, 60.1: 59-98.
Balogun, J., Huff, A.S. and Johnson, P. (2003). Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing.
Journal of Management Studies, 40.1: 197-224.
Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P. and Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing Activity and Practice. In Jenkins, M., Ambrosini, V.
and Collier, N. (Eds), Advanced Strategic Management. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 196-214.
Bettis, R. A. (1991). Strategic management and the straightjacket: An editorial essay. Organization Science, 2.3: 315-319.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Le sens pratique. The logic of practice, translated by Richard Nice. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of practice: toward a unified view of working,
learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2.1: 40-57.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: a social practice perspective. Organization Science, 12.2: 198-213.
Buerger, C. and Gadinger, F. (2005). Zurueck zur praxis! die relation von IB und Weltpolitik im lichte des practice turn.
DVWP-Sektion "Internationale Politik", Mannheim.
Cailluet, L. and Whittington, R. (2008). The Crafts of Strategy: Introduction to Special Issue. Long Range Planning, 41.3: 241-247.
Carter, C., Clegg, S. and Kornberger, M. (2008). Critical strategy: revising strategy as practice. Strategic Organization, 6.1: 83-99.
Chia, R. (2004). Strategy-as-practice: reflections on the research agenda. European Management Review, 1.1: 29-34.
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2006), Strategy as practical coping: a Heideggarian perspective, Organization Studies, 27 (5): 635-655.
Chia, R. and MacKay, R. (2007). Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective: discovering
strategy in the logic of practice. Human Relations, 60.1: 217-242.
Clarke, I. and Mackaness, W. (2001). Management 'intuition': an interpretative account of structure and content of decision
schemas using cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 38.2: 147-172.
Cook, S. and Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and
organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10.4: 381-400.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, US: University of California Press.
Eden, C. (1994). Strategy development and implementation: cognitive mapping for group support. In Hendry, J.,
Johnson, G. and Newton, J. (Eds) Strategic thinking. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons: 115-137.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organization studies: the case for critical realism. Organization
Studies, 26.6: 915-939.
Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48.1: 94-124.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Golsorkhi, D. (2006). La fabrique de la stratégie. Une perspective multidimensionnelle. (Ed). France: Vuibert.
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. Vaara, E. (forthcoming 2009) Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. (Eds).
Cambridge: CUP.
Hendry, J. (2000). Strategic decision-making, discourse, and strategy as social practice.
Journal of Management Studies, 37.7: 955-977.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic practices: an activity theory perspective on continuity and change.
Journal of Management Studies, 40.1: 23-55.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursive, adaptive and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25.4: 529-560.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice; an activity based approach. London, UK: Sage.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective.
Human Relations, 60.1: 5-27.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Whittington, R. (2008). Hard to disagree, mostly. Strategic Organization, 6.1: 101-106.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Spee, A.P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: a review and future directions for the field.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 11.1: 69-95.
Johnson, G. and Huff, A.S. (1998). Everyday innovation/everyday strategy. In Hamel, G., Prahalad, C. K., Thomas, H.
and O'Neal, D. Strategic Flexibility: Managing in a Turbulent Environment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, pp. 13-27.
Johnson, G., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2003). Micro strategy and strategizing: towards an activity-based view.
Journal of Management Studies, 40.1: 3-22.
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin L. and Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as Practice: Research Directions and Resources.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Langley, A. (1989). In Search of Rationality: The Purposes Behind the Use of Formal Analysis in Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34.4: 598-631.
Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5.3: 271-282.
Mantere, S. and Vaara (forthcoming). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective.
Organization Science.
McKiernan, P. and Carter, C. (2004). Special Issue on s-as-p. European Management Review, 1.1: 14-68.
Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: re-thinking the concept of technology in organizations.
Organization Science, 3.3: 398-427.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structure: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations.
Organization Science, 11.4: 404-428.
Orr, J.E. (1996). Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern job. New York: Cornell University Press.
Porac, J.F. and Thomas, H. (1994). Cognitive categorization and subjective rivalry among retailers in a small city.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79.1: 54-67.
Regner, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: inductive versus deductive strategy making.
Journal of Management Studies, 40.1: 57-82.
Rouleau, L. Allard-Poesi, F. and Warnier, V. (2007). Special Issue: Le Management Strategique en Pratiques.
Revue Francaise de Gestion, 174.
Salvato, C. (2003). The role of micro-strategies in the engineering of firm evolution.
Journal of Management Studies, 40.1: 83-108.
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists' everyday efforts to shape strategic direction.
Journal of Management Studies, 40.1: 141-174.
Schatzki, T.R. (1996). Social practices: a Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (2000). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory.
London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T.R. (2002). The site of the social – a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Schatzki, T.R. (2005). The site of organizations. Organization Studies, 26.3: 465-484.
Schatzki, T.R. (2006). On organizations as they happen. Organization Studies, 27.12: 1863-1873.
Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: a systematic-discursive perspective.
Organization Studies, 28.2: 197-218.
Sztompka, P. (1991). Society in action: The theory of social becoming. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13.5: 567-582.
Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. (2nd ed). New York: Random House.
Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38.3: 357-381.
Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29.5: 731-735.
Whittington, R. (2003). The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective.
Strategic Organization, 1.1: 119-127.
Whittington, R., Jarzabkowski, P., Mayer, M., Mounoud, E., Nahapiet, J. and Rouleau, L. (2003).
Taking strategy seriously: responsibility and reform for an important social practice.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 12.4: 396-409.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27.5: 613-634.
Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy practice and strategy process: family differences and the sociological eye.
Organization Studies, 28.10: 1575-1586.
[top]
|
Research Agenda