|
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
What is the Strategy
as Practice Agenda?
Studying Strategy
as Practice?
The Pay-offs
Problems to Address
in Strategy as Practice
Teaching Strategy
as Practice
Bibliography
Origins of Strategy
as Practice
Momentum for the field of strategy as practice has
been growing in the academic community. Influential
early pieces of work on strategy as social action,
such as Knights and Morgan (1991), have been followed
by an increasing attention to the micro practices
involved in strategy making (e.g. Mangham and Pye, 1991; Barry and Elmes,
1997; Johnson and Huff, 1998; Johnson et al, forthcoming;
Oakes et al, 1999). These varied approaches to strategy
as social action have converged in a research agenda
for strategy as practice. As momentum has grown in
the literature, the academic community has gathered
intellectually around the field of practice with conference
tracks at EGOS, EAISM, and EURAM. Key points in this
emerging field are discussed below.
The Practice Turn
Over the past decade there has been an increasing
'practice turn' in management research. For example,
there are literatures on formal analysis in practice
(Langley, 1989; 1990), technology in practice (Orlikowski,
2000), communities of practice (Brown and Duguid,
1991; 2001) and knowing in practice (Cook and Brown,
1999). These literatures move away from the study
of firm assets, technologies, and practices as disembodied
and asocial activities to examining them as richly
interactive and contextually situated social behaviours.
More recently, these concepts are being reflected
in a call for research into strategy as practice,
which recommends that we take seriously the issue
of strategy as social action (Pye, 1995; Hendry, 2000; Whittington,
1996; 2002). In the practice approach we do not commodify
strategy as something that a firm-in-market has but
as something interactive that the firm, market and
actors do. At least one question we might ask is why
the practice turn has become prominent in diverse
management and organisation fields?
Linking Practice and Theory
Strategy as practice arises at a time when the management
sciences are questioning their relevance to practice.
For example, both the Academy of Management Journal
(2002:44.2) and the British Journal of Management
(2001:12, Special Issue) have recently run special
issues recommending that if academic research is to
have a significant role and influence, it needs to
come closer to the actual concerns of practitioners.
Is the practice turn in strategy linked to this debate
and, if so, how will it contribute to the concerns
of strategy practitioners?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda
on sap@domeus.com.
What is the Strategy
as Practice Agenda?
In this section we briefly outline some of the potential
issues for a strategy as practice research agenda,
such as linking micro and macro practice, relevant
theoretical approaches, and the potential for an integrative
framework of strategy as practice.
Linking Micro and Macro
Practice
There is increasingly an economic case for understanding
micro strategy as high velocity, unpredictable and
competitive markets reduce returns to macro assets.
Under such turbulent conditions, rents may be increased
by better strategising - that is by leveraging micro
assets (Johnson et al, 2002). However, what are these
micro assets and to what extent are they consciously
leveraged? There are multiple foci that might validly
contribute to a micro theory of strategy as practice.
For example, we need to focus upon strategic practitioners.
- Who are the strategic actors, at what level of
the firm, and in what stages of the strategy process
are they engaged?
- What are the tools, technologies, routines, and
procedures that practitioners draw upon in order
to act strategically?
- How are language, narrative, interpretation, and
social interaction involved in utilising the tools
and technologies that comprise the strategic infrastructure?
- What constitutes the competence, skill and learning
of a strategic practitioner in utilising the strategic
infrastructure?
Clearly there is an important micro strategy agenda
to be undertaken for which we still lack empirical
support or indeed adequate theoretical frameworks.
One challenge for strategy as practice scholars is
to develop epistemological and methodological bases
for conducting micro studies of strategy as practice.
While the micro practices involved in strategic action,
particularly the interactions between actors, are
an important component of the practice agenda, the
practice turn seeks to embrace both macro and micro
elements of strategy. Actors in micro contexts are
not acting in isolation but are drawing upon the regular,
socially defined modes of acting that arise from the
plural social institutions to which they belong (Whittington,
2001). Much of the infrastructure with which micro
practice is constructed has macro and institutionalised
properties that are transmitted within and between
contexts by social action (Hung and Whittington, 1997;
Jarzabkowski, 2002).
- How can we research and understand the links,
reciprocity and exchanging patterns of influence
between the micro and macro practice of strategy?
An Integrative Framework
In order to develop links between micro and macro
strategy, an integrative framework is needed. Many
existing studies already contribute to the strategy
as practice agenda and could be better drawn upon
through an integrative framework. Additionally, scholars
may position their own studies with consideration
of the greater picture that comprises the strategy
as practice agenda.
- What might an integrative framework for the practice
field be?
- How could we develop a conceptual model that would
link our diverse interests in the practice field?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda
on sap@domeus.com.
Theories of Practice
The strategy as practice agenda needs to develop theoretical
frameworks through which different studies may be
identified, positioned and connected. It is perhaps
no coincidence that the 'practice turn' in the management
sciences has a precursor in the practice turn in social
theory (Schatzki et al, 2001; Whittington, 2002),
for example in the works of Bourdieu, de Certeau,
Foucault, Giddens, Sztompka, Turner and Vygotsky.
However, we should also be mindful in our studies
to make links to those more mainstream strategy literatures
that already comprise a contribution to our area.
For example, there are obvious synergies with the
knowledge based views and dynamic capabilities, with
studies of sense-making, organisational learning,
and change, and with emerging studies on strategy
as power, discourse and social action to mention but
a few.
- How can we use social theory to develop a coherent
ontological and epistemological basis for the study
of strategy as practice?
- How can we make links to existing strategy literatures?
- Which existing strategy literatures already make
contributions to our field?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda
on sap@domeus.com.
Studying Strategy
as Practice
Given the complexity of our research agenda, an obvious
question is; How shall we study strategy as practice?
We have varied phenomena of interest and multiple
levels of analysis with which to deal. Formerly, such
variation has been separated by paradigmatic boundaries
that strongly influence the unit of analysis and the
method of study (cf. Burrell and Morgan, 1972). However,
increasingly there are grounds for mixed methods that
can embrace paradigm commensurability. Practice may,
therefore, provide an opportunity to develop novel
approaches to research design. For example, qualitative
methods are clearly indicated in studies of micro
strategy, particularly ethnography and in-depth case
studies. However, such methods may also lack the flexibility
or breadth to adequately grasp the complexities of
the modern diversified corporation (Balogun, Huff
and Johnson, 2002). Additionally, we need methods
which can span micro and macro practice and access
strategic action in multiple contexts.
- What are applicable units and levels of analysis
for strategy as practice?
- What methods might be used to grasp both breadth
and depth in the practice phenomena?
- How can we combine methods to access links between
micro and macro practice?
- Do new or multiple methods indicate cross-disciplinary
approaches, for example from psychology, sociology,
and economics, and, if so, what are the potential
pay-offs and problems of cross-disciplinarity?
- Should we breach former taboos in the social sciences
by working with practitioners in constructing the
research questions and instruments?
- What is the role of the researcher in strategy
as practice?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda
on sap@domeus.com.
The Pay-offs: Potential
Outcomes of a Practice Perspective
There are a number of potential pay-offs from conducting
strategy as practice research:
- To develop a body of research that more closely
reflects the real work of practitioners, particularly
in terms of what constitutes strategic competence,
skill and learning under different situations;
- To be more aware of the power residing in dominant
and prevailing discourses of strategic action and
their potential to be reproduced in essentially
stable and unquestioning ways;
- To better understand how, why and where innovations
and creativity in the practice of strategy arise
and how we might unleash the capacity for such forms
of practice;
- To develop new methodological approaches to the
study of strategic action;
- To devise integrative frameworks that break down
some of the barriers in existing strategy research;
- To provide a point of reflexivity for researchers
and practitioners in the strategy field. Rather
than commodifying strategy as an object that provides
competitive advantage, we have an opportunity to
reflect on the multiple social and subjective interactions
from which strategy emerges, and to understand how
this might influence perceptions of competitive
advantage;
- To question current strategy teaching and develop
more direct links between our research and our teaching.
- What other pay-offs or contributions might arise
from our field?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda
on sap@domeus.com.
Problems to Address in
Strategy as Practice
As an emerging field, strategy as practice has to
address a number of problems in order to be taken
seriously. While any new area needs support and encouragement
to grow, value also arises from critiquing our field
and tackling its weaknesses. Hopefully discussions
on this website will illuminate some of the following
problems and help to further our research agenda.
The Science of Flipping
Hamburgers
The challenge for strategy as practice to prove it
is more than 'the science of flipping hamburgers'
was issued at EGOS 2001. We may be critical of the
way that much strategy research has progressed quickly
from the descriptive to the normative - explaining
how strategy 'should be', with little explanation
of how strategy is. Nonetheless, we must take seriously
the responsibility of showing why studies of strategy
as practice are valuable.
- How can practice remain faithful to the everyday,
micro activities that constitute strategy whilst
avoiding the mundane?
- If all we achieve is complex and detailed descriptions
of action, how can any generalisability be inferred?
- What theoretical or practical value is added by
a practice approach to strategy?
- What other criticisms are valid to the strategy
as practice field?
The Dependent Variable
The problem of the dependent variable, that is, a
performance outcome, is one of the reasons why strategy
as practice may be disregarded as merely descriptive.
Links to standard firm performance measures, such
as ROCE and MVA, are unlikely to arise from our research.
- What other performance criteria provide objectives
for our agenda?
- Given the delays and iterative cycles between
strategic activity and strategic outcomes, are firm
performance measures valid or are processual criteria
that explain the conduct of social interaction indicated?
- In studying practitioners, are there measures
of skill and competence that might indicate a performance
measure?
- Should we work with practitioners in developing
criteria for measuring better or worse practice?
- What are the appropriate dependent variables for
a strategy as practice approach?
Make your contributions to the Research Agenda
on sap@domeus.com.
Teaching Strategy
as Practice
Business schools are increasingly expanding their
strategy syllabus to reflect the changing demands
of the strategy environment. Some schools, such as
Aston and Warwick in the UK, are specifically offering
strategy as practice courses at MBA and Masters level.
We hope that our discussion and research can be used
to question and inform strategy teaching.
- 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 sap@domeus.com.
[top]
Bibliography
Balogun, J., Huff, A. and Johnson, P. (forthcoming). Three
Responses to the Methodological Challenges of Studying Strategising.
Journal of Management Studies, 40/1, 2003
Barry, D. and M. Elmes. 1997. 'Strategy retold: Toward
a narrative view of strategic discourse.' Academy of Management
Review, 22/2: 429-452.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. 2001. 'Knowledge and organization:
a social practice perspective.' Organization Science, 12/2:
198-213.
Brown, J.S. and P. Duguid. 1991. 'Organizational learning
and communities-of practice: toward a unified view of working,
learning and innovation.' Organization Science, 2: 40-57.
Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis. London: Heinemann, 1979.
Cook, S. and J. Brown. 1999. 'Bridging epistemologies:
The generative dance between organizational knowledge and
organizational knowing.' Organization Science, 10: 381-400.
Hendry, J. 2000. 'Strategic decision-making, discourse,
and strategy as social practice.' Journal of Management
Studies, 37, 955-977.
Hung, S.-C. and R. Whittington. 1997. 'Strategy and institutions:
A pluralistic account of strategies in the taiwanese computing
industry.' Organization Studies, 18: 551-575.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2002)'Strategy as Practice: Recursiveness,
Adaptation and Strategic Practices-in-use.' Aston Business
School Working Paper, RP0212.
Johnson, G. and A. S. Huff 1998. 'Everyday innovation/everyday
strategy.' In Strategic Flexibility: Managing in a Turbulent
Environment. G. Hamel, C. K. Prahalad, H. Thomas and D.
O'Neal: 13-27.
Johnson, G., L. Melin, and R. Whittington. (forthcoming).
'Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an activity-based
view?' Journal of Management Studies, 40/1, 2003.
Knights, D. and G. Morgan. 1991. 'Corporate strategy, organizations
and the subject: A critique', Organization Studies, 12/2:
251-73.
Langley, A. "In Search of Rationality: The Purposes
Behind the Use of Formal Analysis in Organizations."
Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (1989): 598-631.
Langley, A. "Patterns in the Use of Formal Analysis
in Strategic Decisions." Organization Studies 11.1
(1990): 17-45.
Mangham, I. and A. Pye (1991). The Doing of Managing. Oxford, Blackwell
Oakes, L. S., B. Townley, and D. J. Cooper. 1998. 'Business
planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing
institutional field.' Administrative Science Quarterly,
43: 257-292.
Orlikowski, W. 2000. 'Using technology and constituting
structure: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations.'
Organization Science, 12: 404-428.
Pye, A. (1995). "Strategy through Dialogue and Doing: A Case of 'Mornington Crescent'?" Management Learning 26(4): 445-463
Schatzki T, Knorr- Cetina K, and von Savigny E (2000),
The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, Routledge, London
Whittington, R. 1996. 'Strategy as practice.' Long Range
Planning, 29: 731-735.
Whittington, R. 2001. 'Learning to strategise: Problems
of practice.' SKOPE Research Paper, 20, University of Oxford.
Whittington, R. 2002. 'Practice perspectives on strategy:
unifying and developing a field.' Academy of Management
Conference Proceedings, Denver, August.
[top]
|
Research Agenda