Negotiating Language, Meaning and Intention: Strategy Infrastructure as the Outcome of Using a Strategy Tool through Transforming Strategy Objects

Abstract

International audienceThis research examines how managers collectively use strategy tools in local contexts. Building on a practice approach, we argue that the situated use of formal strategy tools is a process of negotiation, materially mediated by provisional strategy objects. We conceptualize strategy tools and objects as having three aspects: language, meaning and intention. Managers use strategy tools successfully if they ultimately create an accepted strategy infrastructure; this final strategy object materializes the (maybe partial) agreement across all three aspects. We theoretically define three processes according to the primary focus of negotiation and illustrate them with empirical vignettes: abstraction/specification, contextualization/de-contextualization and distortion/conformation. We propose a process model of the collective use of strategy tools that integrates the three processes of negotiation and the shifting roles of provisional strategy objects, namely boundary, epistemic and activity. This research thus offers three theoretical contributions. First, it contributes to the material turn of strategy theory by providing a unified conceptualization of strategy tools, objects and infrastructure. Second, the model offers a basis for analyzing how macro-level formal strategy tools get collectively adapted at a micro-level through negotiation processes and transformations of strategy objects. Third, our research explains why some strategy tools are used but their outputs are not

Innovation and sustainability in a large-scale healthcare improvement collaborative - seven propositions for achieving system-wide innovation and sustainability

“…One of the arguments presented about these findings in the strategy performance relationship was the neglect of strategy implementation (Miller and Cardinal, 1994;Brews and Hunt, 1999;Phillips and Moutinho, 2000;Hrebiniak, 2005Hrebiniak, , 2006Whittington and Cailluet, 2008). This trend is still observed in more recent publications on strategy management and strategy processes (Belmondo and Sargis-Roussel, 2015;Paroutis et al, 2015;Thomas and Ambrosini, 2015) where papers tend to examine strategy formation and strategy development, rather than its implementation. So it is now accepted in management literature that the most sophisticated plans require implementation (Heracleous, 2000), as it was famously noted by Hambrick and Cannella (1989, p.278), "Without successful implementation, a strategy (plan) is but a fantasy".…”

Putting Strategy into Action – The Role of Artefacts for Business Format Replication

“…Other studies investigate how strategy development, conceived of as a process of idea exploration, is mediated by artefacts. For instance, these studies show how the use of artefacts is negotiated (Belmondo and Sargis-Roussel, 2015), how artefacts are made sense of (Heracleous and Jacobs, 2008) or how artefacts affect participation in strategy making (Whittington, 2015). Other studies trace how different types of artefacts shape strategy development over time (Kaplan, 2011;Werle and Seidl, 2015).…”

A Transformação Social De Uma Ferramenta Estratégica Em Uma Organização Familiar Brasileira

“…Algo ainda pouco compreendido (GUNN;WILLIAMS, 2007;SPEE;JARZABKOWSKI, 2009;BELMONDO;SARGIS-ROUSSEL, 2015).…”