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-5447f9dfdb-2bw5x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-28T16:56:47.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2 - Participation Research and Open Strategy

from Part I - The Concept of Open Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2019

By
Eero Vaara ,
Anniina Rantakari  and
Jeannie Holstein
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 studies have raised participation as one of the key issues of Open Strategy (Luedicke et al., 2017; Mack & Szulanski, 2017). However, participation has a longer tradition in strategy research (Laine & Vaara, 2015; Mantere & Vaara, 2008) from which Open Strategy could learn from and contribute to. In this chapter, we review research on participation in strategy and discuss its implications for Open Strategy and vice versa. Participation is a dynamic and multifaceted phenomenon, the nature and effects of which are not easy to pin down in strategy making. Participation can generate engagement and create commitment to strategy and similarly improve the quality of decision making (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000). In contrast, limiting participation through secrecy and exclusion may result in ineffective implementation (Mintzberg, 1994), and from a critical perspective, exacerbate organizational inequality (Knights & Morgan, 1991; McCabe, 2010). However, participation can also slow down decision making and constrain the strategy process (Collier et al., 2004; Anderson, 2004). Moreover, widespread participation can create expectations that are then not satisfied, particularly where the decision might be contrary to the advice given by participants (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011).

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 27 - 40
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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 235–264.Google Scholar
Allard-Poési, F. (2015). A Foucauldian perspective on strategic practice: Strategy as the art of (un) folding. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy-as-practice (pp. 234–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. J. (2004). Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning processes in dynamic environments. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1271–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, K. R. (1987). The concept of corporate strategy, 3rd ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
Appleyard, M. N., & Chesborough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle managers sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.Google Scholar
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175–201.Google Scholar
Bourgeois III, L. J. (1980). Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 25–39.Google Scholar
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bracker, J. (1980). The historical development of the strategic management concept. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 61–70.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 24–56.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Floyd, S.W., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2018). Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 531–558.Google Scholar
Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). How Cambridge Analytica turned Facebook “likes” into a lucrative political tool. The Guardian, 17 March 2018. Available from www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/17/facebook-cambridge-analytica-kogan-data-algorithm.Google Scholar
Collier, N., Fishwick, F., & Floyd, S. W. (2004). Managerial involvement and perceptions of strategy process. Long Range Planning, 37(1), 67–83.Google Scholar
Currie, G., & Procter, S. J. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution: The case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1325–1356.Google Scholar
Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dameron, S., & Torset, C. (2014). The discursive construction of strategists’ subjectivities: Towards a paradox lens on strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 291–319.Google Scholar
Dameron, S., Lê, J. K., & LeBaron, C. (2015). Materializing strategy and strategizing material: Why matter matters. British Journal of Management, 26, S1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of opening: The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343–370.Google Scholar
Eriksson, P., & Lehtimäki, H. (1998). Strategy management of the local information society: A constructionist perspective on the production and evaluation of strategy documents. Hallinnon Tutkimus, 4, 290–301.Google Scholar
Eriksson, P., & Lehtimäki, H. (2001). Strategy rhetoric in city management: How the presumptions of classic strategic management live on? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(2), 201–223.Google Scholar
Ezzamel, M. & Willmott, H. (2008). Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: A supplement to rationalist and interpretive accounts. Organization Studies, 29(2), 191–217.Google Scholar
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3, 441–455.Google Scholar
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimericks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Journal of Management Studies, 49 (8), 1351–1374.Google Scholar
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153–167.Google Scholar
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1996). The strategic middle manager: How to create and sustain competitive advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (2000). Building strategy from the middle: Reconceptualizing strategy process. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. (1972/1973). The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 17, 151–164.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development. Organization Science, 16(6), 599–617.Google Scholar
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2015). Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, C., & Thomas, R. (2014). Strategy, discourse and practice: The intensification of power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 320–348.Google Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298–309.Google Scholar
Hendry, J., & Seidl, D. (2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., Whittington, R., Johnson, G., & Schwarz, M. (2006). The role of strategy workshops in strategy development processes: Formality, communication, co-ordination and inclusion. Long Range Planning, 39(5), 479–496.Google Scholar
Holstein, J., Starkey, K., & Wright, M. (2018). Strategy and narrative in higher education. Strategic Organization, 16(1), 61–91.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29(11), 1391–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A.P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69–95.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J.A.A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple strategic goals. Human Relations, 63(2), 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Prashantham, S., Floyd, S. W., & Bourque, N. (2010). The ritualization of strategy workshops. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1589–1618.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 67(6), 85–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy-making. Organization Science, 22(2), 320–346.Google Scholar
Ketokivi, M., & Castañer, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 337–365.Google Scholar
Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies, 12(2), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2011). Strategy as performative practice: The case of Sydney 2030. Strategic Organization, 9(2), 136–162.Google Scholar
Kornberger, M., Meyer, R. E., Brandtner, C., & Höllerer, M. A. (2017). When bureaucracy meets the crowd: Studying “open government” in the Vienna City administration. Organization Studies, 38(2), 179–200.Google Scholar
Kownatzki, M., Walter, J., Floyd, S. W., & Lechner, C. (2013). Corporate control and the speed of strategic business unit decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1295–1324.Google Scholar
Laine, P-M., & Vaara, E. (2007). Struggling over subjectivity: A discursive analysis of strategic development in an engineering group. Human Relations, 59(5), 611–636.Google Scholar
Laine, P-M., & Vaara, E. (2015). Participation in strategy work. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice, 2nd ed. (pp. 616–631). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laine, P-M., Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., & Vaara, E. (2016). Mastery, submission, and subversion: On the performative construction of strategist identity. Organization, 23(4), 505–524.CrossRefGoogle 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
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
Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341–358.Google Scholar
Marginson, D. E. W. (2002). Management control systems and their effects on strategy formation at middle-management levels: Evidence from a UK Organization. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 1019–1031.Google Scholar
McCabe, D. (2010). Strategy-as-power: Ambiguity, contradiction and the exercise of power in a UK building society. Organization, 17(2),151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9),934–948.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107–114.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., Brunet, J. P., & Waters, J. A. (1986). Does planning impede strategic thinking? Tracking the strategies of Air Canada from 1937 to 1976. Advances in Strategic Management, 4(1).Google Scholar
Molloy, E., & Whittington, R. (2005). Organising organising: The practice inside the process. Advances in Strategic Management, 22, 491–515.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A.M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1369–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290.Google Scholar
Rantakari, A., & Vaara, E. (2017). Narratives and processuality. In Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 271–285). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953–983.Google Scholar
Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D. E., & Teece, D. J. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic practice, “discourse” and the everyday interactional constitution of “power effects.” Organization, 12(6), 803–841.Google Scholar
Seidl, D., & Guérard, S. (2015). Meetings and workshops as strategy practices. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., & Seidl, D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 564–581). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1407–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1217–1245.Google Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstätter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285–336.Google Scholar
Westley, F. R. (1990). Middle managers and strategy: Microdynamics of inclusion. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 337–351.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. (2014). Information systems strategy and strategy-as-practice: A joint agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(1), 87–91.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.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S.W. (2017). Some middle managers are more influential than others: An approach for identifying strategic influence. In Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. (Eds.), Handbook of middle management strategy process research (pp. 56–77). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×