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-6bb9c88b65-9rk55 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-20T10:08:46.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Visuals in Open Strategy

from Part III - Technological Assemblages for Open Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2019

By
Sotirios Paroutis  and
Eric Knight
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

Examining Open Strategy through the role of visuals holds great promise. Visual artifacts are increasingly central to what organizational actors do inside and outside their firms, for example, with the growing use of visualization tools, big data analytics, presentations (e.g., PowerPoint), user-centered design approaches, visuals in social media, and videoconferencing dominating modern strategy analysis (Berinato, 2016; Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Kim & Mauborgne, 2002). Through the use of these visuals in their strategy process, firms can communicate their strategic direction to internal and external audiences and actively engage these audiences in particular aspects of their decision making, which could in turn, open new, yet unexplored, avenues for their strategy. As such, visuals open up the opportunity to communicate and engage with a much less strategically informed set of actors than is the norm in strategy, for example shop floor workers or stakeholders such as citizens in local communities. This is possible since visuals can reduce cognitive challenges (Täuscher & Abdelkafi, 2017; Hegarty, 2011) and make such challenges more widely accessible compared to more traditional strategy formats (such as memos or reports that often require familiarity with strategy terminology to be understood).

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 205 - 218
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

Avgerinou, M.D., & Pettersson, R. (2016). Toward a cohesive theory of visual literacy, Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
Balogun, J., Bartunek, J.M., & Do, B. (2015). Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organization Science, 26, 960–979.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 322–336.Google Scholar
Barry, A.M.S. (1997). Visual intelligence: Perception, image, and manipulation in visual communication. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 429–452.Google Scholar
Bechky, B.A. (2011). Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders. Organization Science, 22, 1157–1167.Google Scholar
Bell, E. (2012). Ways of seeing organisational death: A critical semiotic analysis of organisational memorialisation. Visual Studies, 27, 4–17.Google Scholar
Bell, E., & Davison, J. (2013). Visual management studies: Empirical and theoretical approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
Berger, A. A. (1998). Seeing is believing: An introduction to visual communication. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
Berinato, S. (2016). Visualizations that really work. Harvard Business Review, 94, 92–100.Google Scholar
Bingham, C.B., & Eisenhardt, K.M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1437–1464.Google Scholar
Bourgoin, A., & Muniesa, F. (2016). Building a rock-solid slide management consulting, PowerPoint, and the craft of signification. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 390–410.Google Scholar
Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R.E., & Svejenova, S. (2018). Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies. Organization Studies, special issue on the material and visual turn in organization theory: Objectifying and (re)acting to novel ideas, 39(5–6), 597–616.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R.A., Floyd, S., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S, Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2018). Special issue: Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 531–558.Google Scholar
Comi, A., & Whyte, J. (2018). Future making and visual artefacts: An ethnographic study of a design project. Organization Studies, 39(8), 1055–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, S., & Angwin, D. (2011). Stratography: The art of conceptualizing and communicating strategy. Business Horizons, 54(5), 435–446.Google Scholar
Dondis, D. A. (1973). A primer of visual literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.Google Scholar
Eppler, M.J., & Platts, K.W. (2009). Visual strategizing: The systematic use of visualization in the strategic-planning process. Long Range Planning, 42, 42–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as “epistemic objects.” Organization Studies, 30, 7–30.Google Scholar
Foss, N.J, Frederiksen, L., & Rullani, F. (2016). Problem-formulation and problem-solving in self-organized communities: How modes of communication shape project behaviors in the free open-source software community. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2589–2610.Google Scholar
Gaver, W. (1996). Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8, 111–129.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Giraudeau, M. (2008). The drafts of strategy: Opening up plans and their uses. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 291–308.Google Scholar
Gylfe, P., Franck, H., LeBaron, C., & Mantere, S. (2016). Video methods in strategy research: focusing on embodied cognition. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 133–148.Google Scholar
Halgin, D.S., Glynn, M.A., & Rockwell, D. (2018). Organizational actorhood and the management of paradox: A visual analysis. Organization Studies, special issue on the material and visual turn in organization theory: Objectifying and (re)acting to novel ideas, 39(5–6), 645–664.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hassard, J., Burns, D., Hyde, P., & Burns, J-P. (2018). A visual turn for organizational ethnography: Embodying the subject in video-based research. Organization Studies, 39(10), 1403–1424.Google Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50, 298–309.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446–474.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of IT implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. (2008). Crafting strategy: The role of embodied metaphors. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 309–325.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G.P., Bown, N.J., Maule, A.J., Glaister, K.W., & Pearman, A. D. (1999). Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 977–985.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441–456.Google Scholar
Jarratt, D., & Stiles, D. (2010). How are methodologies and tools framing managers’ strategizing practice in competitive strategy development? British Journal of Management, 21, 28–43.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 537–558.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29(11), 1391–1426.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22, 320–346.Google Scholar
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R. (2002). Charting your company’s future. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 76–85.Google Scholar
Knight, E., Cutcher-Gerschenfeld, J., & Mittleman, B. (2015). The art of management complex collaborations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 16–19.Google Scholar
Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 403–432.Google Scholar
Knight, E., Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2018). The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on meaning making in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, Special issue: Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections, 39(3), 894–921.Google Scholar
Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies, 12(2), 251–273.Google Scholar
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
LeBaron, C., & Streeck, J. (1997). Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1–25.Google Scholar
Liu, F., & Maitlis, S. (2014). Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: A study of strategic conversations in top team meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 202–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, S. (2013). What is organizational strategy? A language-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1408–1426.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
Meyer, E. (1997). Designing infographics: Theory, creative techniques & practical solutions. Indianapolis, IN: Hayden.Google Scholar
Meyer, R., Hollerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 489–555.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (2000). The rise and fall of strategic planning. London: Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. (2014). From autonomous strategic behaviour to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1202–1229.Google Scholar
Moriarty, S.E. (1997). A conceptual map of visual communication. Journal of Visual Literacy, 17 (2), 9–24.Google Scholar
Moriarty, S.E., & Kenney, K. (1995). Visual communication: A taxonomy and bibliography. Journal of Visual Literacy, 15(2), 7–156.Google Scholar
Nöth, W. (2011). Visual semiotics: Key features and an application to picture ads. In Margolis, E. & Pauwels, L. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 298–316). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ovans, A. (2014). What makes the best infographics so convincing. Harvard Business Review, communication, 22 April.Google Scholar
Paroutis, S., Franco, A., & Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Visual interactions with strategy tools: Producing strategic knowledge in workshops. British Journal of Management, 26, S48–S66.Google Scholar
Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2013). Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 935–956.Google Scholar
Ray, J.L., & Smith, A. D. (2012). Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations, and application in a field study. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 288–315.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 141–174.Google Scholar
Spee, P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1217–1245.Google Scholar
Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1232–1259.Google Scholar
Täuscher, K., & Abdelkafi, N. (2017). Visual tools for business model innovation: Recommendations from a cognitive perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(2), 160–174.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132–153.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582.Google Scholar
Vaara, E., Sorsa, V., & Pälli, P. (2010). On the force potential of strategy texts: A critical discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization. Organization, 17, 685–702.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T., Djonov, E., & O’Halloran, K.L. (2013). “David Byrne really does love PowerPoint”: Art as research on semiotics and semiotic technology. Social Semiotics, 23, 409–423.Google Scholar
Warren, S. (2008). Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: Towards a sensual methodology. Organization Studies, 19(4), 559–580.Google Scholar
Warren, S. (2009). Visual methods in organizational research. In Bryman, A. & Buchanan, D. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 566–582). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. In Malhotra, N. (Ed.), Review of marketing research, volume 4 (pp. 123–146). New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc.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
Werle, F., & Seidl, D. (2015). The layered materiality of strategizing: Epistemic objects and the interplay between material artifacts in the exploration of strategic topics. British Journal of Management, 26, S67–S89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, C., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22, 531–544.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Molloy, E., Mayer, M., & Smith, A. (2006). Practices of strategising/organising: Broadening strategy work and skills. Long Range Planning, 39(6), 615–629.Google 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
Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M., & Tidd, J. (2008). Visualizing knowledge in project-based work. Long Range Planning, 41, 74–92.Google Scholar
Zhao, S., & van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Understanding semiotic technology in university classrooms: A social semiotic approach to PowerPoint-assisted cultural studies lectures. Classroom Discourse, 5, 71–90.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
×