Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T19:32:11.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Defining Open Strategy: Dimensions, Practices, Impacts, and Perspectives

from Part I - The Concept of Open Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2019

By
David Seidl ,
Georg von Krogh  and
Richard Whittington
Edited by
David Seidl ,
Georg von Krogh  and
Richard Whittington
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Georg von Krogh
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal University (ETH), Zürich
Richard Whittington
Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Recent years have seen increasing initiatives involving more open strategizing. These initiatives, referred to as Open Strategy, imply greater transparency and/or inclusiveness in strategy processes (Hautz et al., 2017; Whittington et al., 2011). As such, Open Strategy forms part of a larger societal trend toward greater degrees of openness in all domains of life – such as Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), Open Source Software (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003), Open Government (Janssen et al., 2012), Open Data (Huijboom & van den Broek, 2011), and Open Science (David, 1998). By comparison with some of these domains, research on Open Strategy is still nascent. While substantial theoretical groundwork has been laid, and both qualitative and quantitative studies are now appearing, there remain significant opportunities for more research on what is a fast-developing and wide-ranging set of initiatives. Given this breadth, we identify the key dimensions, practices, and impacts of Open Strategy, and propose promising theoretical perspectives capable of building cumulative knowledge regarding these. We also guide researchers by offering a practical definition that sets boundaries on the phenomenon.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 9 - 26
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambarish, R., John, K., & Williams, J. (1987). Efficient signaling with dividends and investments. The Journal of Finance, 42, 321–343.Google Scholar
Amrollahi, A., & Rowlands, B. (2017). Collaborative open strategic planning: A method and case study. Information Technology & People, 30(4), 832–852.Google Scholar
Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310–321.Google Scholar
Armbrüster, T., & Gebert, D. (2002). Uncharted territories of organizational research: The case of Karl Popper’s open society and its enemies. Organization Studies, 23(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aten, K., & Thomas, G. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148–180.Google Scholar
Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategy Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214.Google Scholar
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.Google Scholar
Baptista, J., Wilson, A. D., Galliers, R. D., & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 322–336.Google Scholar
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
Bini, L., Dainelli, F., & Giunta, F. (2016). Business model disclosure in the Strategic Report: Entangling intellectual capital in value creation process. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(1), 83–102.Google Scholar
Bjelland, O. M., & Wood, R. C. (2008). An inside view of IBM’s “Innovation Jam.” MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 32–40.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brummans, B. H. J. M., Cooren, F., Robichaud, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). Approaches in research on the communicative constitution of organizations. In Putnam, L. L. & Mumby, D. K. (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational communication (pp. 173–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, 4(2), 125–137.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.Google Scholar
David, P. A. (1998). Common agency contracting and the emergence of “Open science” institutions. American Economic Review, 88(2), 15–21.Google Scholar
Denyer, D., Parry, E., & Flowers, P. (2011). “Social,” “Open” and “Participative”? Exploring personal experiences and organisational effects of enterprise2.0 use. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6), 375–396.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., Kremser, W., Seidl., D., & Werle, F. (2017). A communication perspective on open strategy and open innovation. Managementforschung, 27(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
Dobusch., L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3) 343–370.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppler, M. J., & Platts, K. W. (2009). Visual strategizing: The systematic use of visualization in the strategic-planning process. Long Range Planning, 42(1), 42–74.Google Scholar
Faraj, S., von Krogh, G., Monteiro, E., & Lakhani, K. R. (2016). Special section introduction – Online community as space for knowledge flows. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 668–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. (1996). Strategic reference point theory. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 219–235.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forker, J. J. (1992). Corporate governance and disclosure quality. Accounting and Business Research, 22(86), 111–124.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gegenhuber, T., & Dobusch, L. (2017). Making an impression through openness: How open strategy-making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 337–354.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances, in Shaw, R. & Bransford, J. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Grant, D., Oswick, C., Hardy, C., Putnam, L. L., & Phillips, N. (Eds.). (2004). The Sage handbook of organizational discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.Google Scholar
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Guth, W. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle management self‐interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 313–327.Google Scholar
Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & von Krogh, G. (2011). Social software and strategy. Long Range Planning, 44(5/6), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution: How to survive in turbulent times by making innovation a way of life. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2006). Swimming with sharks: Creating strategic change through multi-sector collaboration. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(1–2), 96–112.Google Scholar
Harhoff, D., & Lakhani, K. (Eds.). (2016). Revolutionizing innovation: Users, communities, and open innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727–1748.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L., Gößwein, J., & Beaudette, P. (2018). Open strategy-making at the Wikimedia Foundation: A dialogic perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 5–35.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijboom, N., & van den Broek, T. (2011). Open data: An international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice, 12(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
Hutter, K., Nketia, B. A., & Füller, J. (2017). Falling short with participation – Different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 355–370.Google Scholar
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.Google Scholar
Kim, C. W., & Mauborgne, R. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 323–338.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., & Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 371–384.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mack, D. Z., & Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 385–396.Google Scholar
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341–358.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, J., Wilson, A., & Cooke, L. (2018). Managing organizational legitimacy through modes of open strategizing. In Academy of Management Proceedings. 78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 10–14 Aug 2018, Chicago, Illinois. Academy of Management.Google Scholar
Nason, R. S., Bacq, S., & Gras, D. (2018). A behavioral theory of social performance: Social identity and stakeholder expectations. Academy of Management Review, 43(2), 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeley, T., & Leonardi, P. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media use: The paradox of non-work interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 922–946.Google Scholar
Neilsen, E. H., & Rao, M. H. (1987). The strategy-legitimacy nexus: A thick description. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 523–533.Google Scholar
Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 257–292.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations, Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.Google Scholar
Pittz, T. G., & Adler, T. (2016). An exemplar of open strategy: Decision-making within multi-sector collaborations. Management Decision, 54(7), 1595–1614.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1966). The open society and its enemies. Volumes I and II. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.Google Scholar
Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290.Google Scholar
Regnér, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 57–82.Google Scholar
Rindova, V. P., & Fombrun, C. J. (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8), 691–710.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Schmitt, R. (2010). Dealing with wicked issues: Open strategizing and the Camisea case. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2018). Inter‐organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta‐problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 830–858.Google Scholar
Sieg, J. H., Wallin, M. W., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 40(3), 281–291.Google Scholar
Sinatra, A., Singh, H., & von Krogh, G. (Eds.). (2016). The management of corporate acquisitions: International perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54 (4), 44–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A. (1988). Negotiations – Varieties, contexts, processes and social orders (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.Google Scholar
Teulier, R., & Rouleau, L. (2013). Middle managers’ sensemaking and interorganizational change initiation: Translation spaces and editing practices. Journal of Change Management, 13(3), 308–337.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 11–25.Google Scholar
Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. C., & Ozcan, P. (2018). Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 248–272.Google Scholar
Viscusi, G., & Tucci, C. (2018). Three’s a crowd? Creating and capturing value through crowdsourcing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–223.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2016). Identifying viable “need-solution pairs”: Problem solving without problem formulation. Organization Science, 27(1), 207–221.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wenzel, M., & Koch, J. (2018). Strategy as staged performance: A critical discursive perspective on keynote speeches as a genre of strategic communication. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 639–663.Google Scholar
Westley, F. R. (1990). Middle managers and strategy: Microdynamics of inclusion. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 337–351.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. (2019). Opening strategy: Professional strategists and practice change, 1960 to today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis‐Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R., Yakis‐Douglas, B., & Ahn, K. (2016). Cheap talk? Strategy presentations as a form of chief executive officer impression management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(12), 2413–2424.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S.W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakis-Douglas, B., Angwin, D., Ahn, K., & Meadows, M. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organizational transition. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 411–422.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×