4 results
Chapter 35 - Strategy as Practice and Routine Dynamics
- from Part IV - Related Communities of Thought
- Edited by Martha S. Feldman, University of California, Irvine, Brian T. Pentland, Michigan State University, Luciana D'Adderio, University of Edinburgh, Katharina Dittrich, University of Warwick, Claus Rerup, David Seidl
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics
- Published online:
- 11 December 2021
- Print publication:
- 16 December 2021, pp 481-500
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this chapter, we compare Routine Dynamics and Strategy as Practice based on an extended literature review. Routine Dynamics and Strategy as Practice are distinctive communities of thought in organization studies that exhibit a number of striking parallels: both subscribe to the overall “practice turn” in the social sciences, seek to bring the human being back in, and focus predominantly on the level of action involved in organizational routines and strategy, respectively. In our comparison of similarities and differences of Routine Dynamics and Strategy as Practice, we focus on their empirical domains, underlying theoretical perspectives, research frameworks, levels of analysis, and empirical methods employed. Based on that, we discuss what Routine Dynamics can learn from Strategy as Practice and vice versa. We conclude with some general reflections on the future relation between the two research communities and develop an agenda for future research that facilitates cross-fertilizations between the two research communities.
9 - An activity theory approach to strategy as practice
- from Part II - Theoretical Resources: Social Theory
-
- By Paula Jarzabkowski, Cass Business School, City University, London, Carola Wolf, Aston Business School, Birmingham
- Edited by Damon Golsorkhi, Linda Rouleau, David Seidl, Universität Zürich, Eero Vaara
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice
- Published online:
- 05 October 2015
- Print publication:
- 03 September 2015, pp 165-183
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter introduces activity theory as an approach for studying strategy as practice. Activity theory conceptualizes the ongoing construction of activity as a product of activity systems, comprising the actor, the community with which that actor interacts and those symbolic and material tools that mediate between actors, their community and their pursuit of activity. The focus on the mediating role of tools and cultural artefacts in human activity seems especially promising for advancing the strategy-as-practice agenda, for example as a theoretical resource for the growing interest in sociomateriality and the role of tools and artefacts in (strategy) practice (for example, Balogun et al. 2014; Lanzara 2009; Nicolini 2009; Spee and Jarzabkowski 2009; Stetsenko 2005). Despite its potential, in a recent review Vaara and Whittington (2012) identified only three strategy-as-practice articles explicitly applying an activity theory lens. In the wider area of practice-based studies in organizations, activity theory has been slightly more popular (for example, Blackler 1993; 1995; Blackler, Crump and McDonald 2000; Engeström, Kerosuo and Kajamaa 2007; Groleau 2006; Holt 2008; Miettinen and Virkkunen 2005). It still lags behind its potential, however, primarily because of its origins as a social psychology theory developed in Russia with little initial recognition outside the Russian context, particularly in the area of strategy and organization theory, until recently (Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks and Yanow 2009). This chapter explores activity theory as a resource for studying strategy as practice as it is socially accomplished by individuals in interaction with their wider social group and the artefacts of interaction. In particular, activity theory's focus on actors as social individuals provides a conceptual basis for studying the core question in strategy-as-practice research: what strategy practitioners do.
The chapter is structured in three parts. First, an overview of activity theory is provided. Second, activity theory as a practice-based approach to studying organizational action is introduced and an activity system conceptual framework is developed. Third, the elements of the activity system are explained in more detail and explicitly linked to each of the core SAP concepts: practitioners, practices and praxis. In doing so, links are made to existing strategy-as-practice research, with brief empirical examples of topics that might be addressed using activity theory. Throughout the chapter, we introduce key authors in the development of activity theory and its use in management and adjacent disciplinary fields, as further resources for those wishing to make greater use of activity theory.
8 - An activity-theory approach to Strategy as Practice
- Edited by Damon Golsorkhi, Linda Rouleau, David Seidl, Universität Zürich, Eero Vaara
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice
- Published online:
- 05 October 2012
- Print publication:
- 26 August 2010, pp 127-140
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
An activity-theory approach to Strategy as Practice
This chapter introduces activity theory as an approach for studying Strategy as Practice. Activity theory conceptualizes the ongoing construction of activity as a product of activity systems, comprising the actor, the community with which that actor interacts and those symbolic and material tools that mediate between actors, their community and their pursuit of activity. Activity theory has its roots in Russian social psychology. Russian cultural historical activity theory, as developed by Vygotsky (1978), initially conceptualized early childhood development through children's interaction in activities with their community. His followers, particularly Leontiev (1978), developed this theory more widely to encompass the interaction between the individual and the collective in the pursuit of activity. Activity theory has been widely adopted within the fields of education and human–computer interaction (Kaptelinin and Nardi 2006), as well as being developed in a particular way by Engeström (1990) for examining work practices in a range of contexts. More recently it has been used within organization theory to examine organizational and strategy practice (e.g. Blackler 1993, 1995; Blackler et al. 2000; Groleau 2006; Jarzabkowski 2003, 2005). Activity theory provides a resource for analysing the interaction between practitioners, practices and praxis through the study of activity systems.
In this chapter, I shall explain some specific concepts associated with activity theory and indicate its value for studying Strategy as Practice as it is socially accomplished by individuals in interaction with their wider social group and the artefacts of interaction.
11 - Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism
- Edited by Thomas B. Lawrence, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Roy Suddaby, University of Alberta, Bernard Leca
-
- Book:
- Institutional Work
- Published online:
- 15 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 16 July 2009, pp 284-316
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter takes a social theory of practice approach to examining institutional work; that is, how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. We examine alternative approaches that organizations use to deal with institutional pluralism based on a longitudinal real-time case study of a utility company grappling with opposing market and regulatory logics over time. These two logics required the firm to both mitigate its significant market power and also maintain its commercially competitive focus and responsiveness to shareholders.
Institutional theorists have long acknowledged that institutions have a central logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) or rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995/2001; Townley, 2002), comprising a set of material and symbolic practices and organizing principles that provide logics of action for organizations and individuals, who then reproduce the institutions through their actions (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Despite a monolithic feel to much institutional theory, in which a dominant institutional logic appears to prevail, institutional theorists also acknowledge the plurality of institutions (e.g. Friedland & Alford, 1991; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Lounsbury, 2007; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Whittington, 1992). While these pluralistic institutions may be interdependent, they are not considered to coexist in harmony; “There is no question but that many competing and inconsistent logics exist in modern society” (Scott, 1995: 130).