Space and the Dynamic Between Openness and Closure: Open strategizing in the TV series Borgen

Abstract

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.

Openness as Organizing Principle: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Again, the balance between transparency and inclusion varies, though one or other must be present. Some studies make the case for open strategy referring also to extended decision rights ( Dobusch et al, 2019 ; Mehrpouya & Salles-Djelic, 2019 ), as in democratic strategic decision-making, but the articles by Lingo (2023) as well as Holstein and Rantakari (2023) included in this Special Issue confirm that this is not standard. These two articles also demonstrate that in open strategy the dimensions of transparency and inclusion can vary in importance over time.…”

“…The articles included in this Special Issue echoe this need for control and regulation because of – or in spite of – openness. For example, Holstein and Rantakari (2023) show that an uncontrolled increase in openness can lead to closure. Diriker et al (2023) go a step further by suggesting that those involved are best equipped to manage and control openness because they can identify when adjustments to the current design are needed.…”

“…Taking a broader view on the dynamics of Open Organizing, Jeannie Holstein and Anniina Rantakari (2023) focus on the transition from openness to closure in the domain of open strategy. As they refer to openness in terms of the dynamics between transparency/opacity and inclusion/exclusion, their paper is positioned between these dimensions in Figure 1 .…”

Vallan ja vapauden linnake

“…Vallan linnake on vuosien mittaan innoittanut politiikan, maantieteen ja median ja viestinnän tutkijoita. Sarjasta julkaistut lukuisat tutkimukset käsittelevät politiikan spin doctor -ilmiötä (Soetaert & Rutten 2014;Richards 2016), politiikan muuttuvaa agendajärjestystä (Andersen et al 2022), poliitikkojen mediastrategioita (Holstein & Rantakari 2022), geopolitiikkaa (Saunders 2019;2021;Chow, Waade & Saunders 2020;Dodds & Hochscherf 2020) ja islaminuskon käsittelyä (Gad 2017). Viittauksia sarjassa käsiteltyyn seksuaaliterveyteen on sen sijaan vaikeampi löytää.…”

Transforming Visions into Actions: Strategic change as a future-making process

“…The detached and episodic nature of meetings and workshops enable envisioning by providing a dedicated space separate from daily tasks and responsibilities to create and hone a vision (Hendry & Seidl, 2003; Johnson et al, 2010), but their separation from daily activities and their liminal nature are also an obstacle to embedding imagined ideals into ways of working. Workshops can be characterized as spaces , with particular characteristics such as boundaries, distance and movement that allow organizational members to sense-make and experiment together in ways that do lead to change (Bucher & Langley, 2016; Holstein & Rantakari, 2023; Kellogg, 2009; Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019). What is missing, however, is an understanding of how sensemaking and experimenting in particular spaces result in widescale shifts in ways of working across an entire organization.…”