In this chapter we focus on participation in open strategy. We examine how the issue of participation has been dealt with in previous strategy literature and elaborate on how research on open strategy can be linked with and advance this body of work. We identify three main views on participation in strategy research: participation as an inherent part of the strategy process, participation as enabled or constrained by practices, and participation as an issue of subjectivity. We then elaborate three distinctively different approaches to participation that might inform our understanding of inclusion in open strategy: open strategy as limited participation, open strategy as co-creation of strategies, and open strategy as 'deep engagement' defining the rules of the game. Based on these approaches, we discuss their implications on open strategy research and suggest a research agenda for future studies of participation in open strategy.

In this paper we apply the idea of narrative to strategy and to the development of strategy in the higher education context. We explore how strategy is formed as an intertextual narrative in a comparative study of higher education (HE) in the UK context. Existing research suggests that competition between narratives, such as that in HE, should be problematic in strategy terms. We show that this is not necessarily the case. Unlike in other settings where new strategy narratives tend to drive out previous narratives, in HE it is the ongoing interaction between historical and new narratives that gives the content of strategy its essential voice. We show how apparently competing narratives are accommodated though appeals to emotion and values. The maintenance of strategic direction requires hope and a synthesis of societal values that maintains access to the past, the future, and multiple narrators. This approach helps us understand how universities perform the complex task of adapting the strengths of the university's past to the challenges of external policy developments in strategy formation.

In this paper we examine how the use of space shapes the dynamic between openness and closure in open strategizing. To do this, we draw from research that has defined organizational space as a process that is both a social product and produces social relations. We analyzed the use of space in open strategizing in the Danish TV series and political drama ‘Borgen’. In our analysis we focused on three building blocks of space: boundaries, distance, and movement that allowed us to elaborate how the dynamic between openness and closure is shaped. Drawing on our analysis, we revealed three spatial features – physical visibility, strategizing artefacts, discursive designation – that play a role in the dynamic between openness and closure in strategizing. We constructed a conceptual framework that shows how these spatial features, and their different combinations are associated with pivots between openness and closure. Thus, our findings advance prior open strategy research by providing potential explanations of why openness turns to closure, despite the attempts to keep the strategizing process open. We argue that taking space seriously provides a more nuanced understanding to some of the contingencies and possibilities related to the dynamics of openness and closure in strategizing.

We examine xenophobia from the perspective of the unconscious of individuals, groups and nations, emphasizing the role of fantasy, and arguing that some leaders use xenophobic discourse to exploit fantasies arising from emotions such as anxiety, fear and anger. We discuss this in the context of the public sphere as conceptualized by Habermas. We illustrate this with reference to an analysis of the psychic life of ‘Brexit’, the UK decision to exit the European Union in 2016, arguing that Brexit was one expression of the unconscious life of a nation. We contribute to our understanding of xenophobia and the role of psychodynamic forces within the public sphere by highlighting the key role of the unconscious and its ability to be influenced by leaders. We conclude by reflecting on how we might work to counter xenophobia and its fantasies.

No abstract