Introduction: what is strategy as practice?

Golsorkhi, Damon; Rouleau, Linda; Seidl, David; Vaara, Eero

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139681032.001

Cited by 57 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a consequence, strategy research in Germany is becoming increasingly -Saxonic‖ (Galtung 1981) in style. At the same time, however, there appears to be also an opposite trend: the most obvious example of this is the recent rise of the so-called strategy-as-practice research tradition (Johnson et al 2003, Jarzabkowski et al 2007, Golsorkhi et al 2010 in the UK and slowly in the US as well (Jarzabkowski and Kaplan 2010), which shares many of the aspects that characterize the German research stream we have described here. Perhaps it is not surprising that many German strategy researchers are highly involved in the strategy-as-practice community.…”

Section: Commonalities In the Central Streams Of Strategy Research Inmentioning

confidence: 91%

Strategy research in the German context: The influence of economic, sociological and philosophical traditions

Ortmann¹,

Seidl²

2010

Advances in Strategic Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper takes a look at the particularities of German strategy research over the last three decades. In contrast to much of the Anglo-Saxon research, which has focused on competition as a guiding concept in theorizing about strategy, German research has typically been concerned with more fundamental questions about the general relationship between organizations and their environments and, as a result, tended to be more conceptual than empirical. Researchers have been particularly influenced by the German sociological and philosophical traditions, specifically by the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas and by the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. Also, there are authors who draw on the economic tradition of the Austrian School in order to develop a competence-based theory of the firm. Another branch builds on Anthony Giddens's structuration theory and Jacques Derrida's philosophy of deconstruction. As we will demonstrate, much of the research has been concerned with fundamental theoretical tensions: evolution vs. planning, selection vs. compensation, cognitive-instrumental rationality vs. moral-practical rationality, etc. We note that, as a consequence, much of German strategy research shows a particular interest in paradoxa and oxymora (such as 'planned evolution', 'productive misunderstandings' or 'unfocused monitoring'). This paper will identify and explore important strands of German strategy research and discuss its particularities compared to mainstream strategy research in the United States. Abstract:The present paper takes a look at the particularities of German strategy research over the last three decades. In contrast to much of the Anglo-Saxon research, which has focused on competition as a guiding concept in theorizing about strategy, German research has typically been concerned with more fundamental questions about the general relation between organizations and their environments and, as a result, tended to be more conceptual than empirical. Researchers have been particularly influenced by the German sociological and philosophical theoretical traditions, specifically by the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas and by the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. Also, there are authors who draw on the economic tradition of the Austrian school in order to develop a competence-based theory of the firm. Another branch builds on Anthony Giddens's structuration theory and Jacques Derrida's philosophy of deconstruction. As we will demonstrate, much of the research has been concerned with fundamental theoretical tensions: evolution vs. planning, selection vs. compensation, cognitive-instrumental rationality vs. moral-practical rationality etc. We note that, as a consequence, much of German strategy research shows a particular interest in paradoxa and oxymora (such as -planned evolution‖, -productive misunderstandings‖ or -unfocused monitoring‖). This paper will identify and explore important strands of German strategy research and discuss its particularities compared to mainstream strategy research ...

show abstract

Section: Commonalities In the Central Streams Of Strategy Research Inmentioning

confidence: 91%

Strategy research in the German context: The influence of economic, sociological and philosophical traditions

Ortmann¹,

Seidl²

2010

Advances in Strategic Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, in the two most influential schools of strategy research (the competitive positioning and the resourcebased view of the firm -Porter, 1991;Barney and Arikan, 2001) there is a notable absence of ethical issues in the frameworks and explanations suggested. Similarly, models derived from the behavioral theory of the firm largely refrain from tackling ethical issues (Bromiley, 2005), as do frameworks suggested by process and practice researchers (Mintzberg, 2007;Golsorkhi et al, 2015;Vaara and Whittington, 2012). In short, despite early pleas for the opposite, with few exceptions, in most theories and frameworks of strategy research, there has been no clear place for ethics.…”

Section: Ethics and Strategy Research: A Difficult Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviewing the research themes that have emerged in practice-based studies of strategy, Golsorkhi et al (2015) have highlighted the discourses, tools and materials, power relationships, managers' roles and identities, and sensemaking processes through which strategy work is accomplished. Furthermore, suggesting directions for further research, Vaara and Whittington (2012) have urged researchers to pay closer attention to: agency, macro-institutional contexts, power and politics, emergence, and materiality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy and virtue: Developing strategy-as-practice through virtue ethics

Tsoukas

2017

Strategic Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategy-as-practice research has usefully built on earlier strategy process research by taking into account the social embeddedness of strategy making. While such an approach has generated valuable insights, it has curiously left unexplored the moral dimension of practice. In this paper, we show how the potential of strategy-as-practice research may be more fully realized if the moral dimension of practice is conceptualized through virtue ethics (especially MacIntyre's version).Specifically, we first reconceptualize, through virtue ethics, the three main concepts of strategyas-practice -practice, praxis, and practitioners -, underscoring the inherently moral constitution of actions undertaken in strategy-related work. Moreover, we suggest that strategic management is viewed as a particular kind of practice (what we call "competitive institutional practice"), charged with "values articulation work" and "balancing work". While the former articulates a good purpose for the organization, the latter seeks to care for both excellence and success through balancing "capabilities development work" with "differentiation work". Illustrations are provided to support this argument and several suggestions for further research are offered.

show abstract

“…SaP studies use multiple interpretations of the practice lens (Rouleau, 2013), but is generally presented as a perspective within the broader field of strategic management that considers strategy not as something that a firm has but rather as something that people do (Golsorkhi et al, 2010). One thrust is to take seriously the work and tools of practitioners themselves to better understand strategizing.…”

Section: The Sap Interpretation Of Stsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating strategy tools from an interactive perspective

Cheng

Havenvid

2017

IMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(250 words)Purpose: This paper investigates how the strategic management concept of 'strategy tools' can be reinterpreted from an industrial network perspective. It considers how strategy tools are used to influence the substance of relationships and how firms engage in strategic action by using such tools.Design/methodology/approach: Using case study research involving three focal firms, the paper scrutinizes use of selected strategy tools to examine how they are used to systematically relate to others and create benefits and affect development paths in business relationships.Findings: Strategy tools can be viewed as an integrated part of a networking pattern of mobilizing resources, linking activities and relating actors. Seen in this manner, use of strategy tools can be interaction-facilitating or interaction-creating. Research limitations/implications:In an interactive approach, strategy tools must be seen in relation to others as they are used in strategic (co-)action to engage and involve others. In this view, tools are strategic when used to affect the long-term development of important business relationships. Practical implications:Practitioners should acknowledge that the use of a strategy tool to handle counterparts is emerging, and valuable only in relation to specific others. Because the value of strategy tools is unknowable until it is revealed how they can affect the substance of a specific relationship, there is no best-practice or one-size-fits-all approach.Originality/ value: This paper illuminates the phenomenon of 'strategy tools' by considering it from both sides of the business exchange interface.

show abstract

Introduction: what is strategy as practice?

Cited by 57 publications

References 134 publications

Strategy research in the German context: The influence of economic, sociological and philosophical traditions

Strategy research in the German context: The influence of economic, sociological and philosophical traditions

Strategy and virtue: Developing strategy-as-practice through virtue ethics

Investigating strategy tools from an interactive perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About