The Discursive Construction of Strategists' Subjectivities: Towards a Paradox Lens on Strategy

Abstract

Until recently, the field of strategy has neglected the question of what it means to be a strategist. Based on an analysis of 68 interviews with strategy practitioners, our results highlight four main tensions that emerge from strategists' discourses on strategizing work: the social tension, the cognitive tension, the focus tension, and the time tension. This tension-based representation of strategy enables us to differentiate between three forms of strategists' subjectivities, i.e. the ways by which strategists discursively cope with tensions as a means of constituting their identity and legitimacy: the mythicizing subjectivity, the concretizing subjectivity, and the dialogizing subjectivity. Such results shed light on what a strategist is, suggesting that strategizing can be conceptualized as the art of balancing tensions and that multiple strategists' subjectivities within a paradox lens on strategy may in fact co-exist

Transcendence through Rhetorical Practices: Responding to Paradox in the Science Sector

“…These practice-oriented studies have not focused on transcendence specifically (e.g., Beech et al, 2004;Dameron & Torset, 2014;Jarzabkowski et al, 2013;Michaud, 2014;Murninghan & Conlon, 1991), yet have suggested the complexity of such response, for example, by showing how practices that differentiate paradoxical poles can unfold alongside those that integrate them (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;Knight & Paroutis, forthcoming;Smith, 2014). In addition, studies have begun to show that one particularly useful way to examine transcendence is to study rhetorical practices (Abdallah et al, 2011;Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007) and we will turn to this insight below.…”

“…Paradoxes have been shown to emerge and be reflected within discourse and rhetoric (Dameron & Torset, 2014;Whittle et al, 2008) and specific discursive practices, such as ambiguity, have been shown to be a central means through which actors respond to paradox (Abdallah & Langley, 2013;Hatch & Erhlich, 1993;Jarzabkowski & Lê, forthcoming). Regarding transcendence specifically, Abdallah et al (2011) point to the discursive foundations of transcendence and explore important nonrhetorical mechanisms, such as groupthink, that support (and eventually undermine) transcendence.…”

“…Furthermore, in contrast with Jarzabkowski and Sillince's (2007) emphasis on consistency, the importance of inconsistency for managing paradox has also been shown (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), the implication being that transcendence rhetoric perhaps also involves maintaining inconsistency (El-Sawad et al, 2004;Whittle et al, 2008). Finally, Jarzabkowski and Sillince (2007), as with paradox studies generally, have focused on the speech acts of leaders (also see: Abdallah et al, 2011;Dameron & Torset, 2014). There is thus a need to broaden the notion of speaker/audience to account for the rhetoric of diverse actors who collectively construct transcendence.…”

“…Namely, rhetoric has been shown to have "constructive potential" (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001, p.261), with a 'direct and dynamic' relationship to organizational action (Balogun et al, 2014;Sillince et al, 2012;Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Through this focus on rhetorical practices we also draw from a growing number of studies that show the consequentiality of everyday activities in shaping how paradoxes are formed and responded to (Beech et al, 2004;Dameron & Torset, 2014;Jarzabkowski & Lê, forthcoming). Such an approach has the potential to move beyond existing generalized understandings of paradox responses and it has been noted that more research into these practices is required (Jarzabkowski et al, 2013;Jarzabkowski & Lê, forthcoming;Smith, 2014).…”

We Have To Do This and That? You Must be Joking: Constructing and Responding to Paradox Through Humor

“…These everyday interactions bring paradoxes into being, giving them salience and invoking responses (Dameron & Torset, 2014;Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011). We therefore focus in this paper on paradoxes of performing, which is where people experience paradox in their everyday roles (Smith &Lewis, 2011).…”