Introduction
Strategic planning is an archetypal strategy tool or practice that has been at the core of strategy scholarship since the emergence of strategic management as a structured academic field. While some have questioned its value (Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1994), its prevalence has persisted over the years (Reference Ocasio and JosephOcasio and Joseph 2008; Reference Rigby and BilodeauRigby and Bilodeau 2018). After a brief review of earlier literature, this chapter will examine more recent research on strategic planning viewed as a social practice. The chapter aims to consolidate emerging knowledge on the nature of strategic planning, and to examine how, why and with what consequences it is used in organizations.
Before proceeding, it is important to consider what is meant by the notion of strategic planning. Reference AnthonyAnthony (1965: 16) has defined it as ‘the process of deciding on the objectives of the organization, on changes in these objectives, on the resources used to obtain these objectives and on the policies that are to govern the use and disposition of these resources’. Later definitions have tended to insist more clearly on the nature of the process involved, however, describing it as ‘explicit’ (Reference ArmstrongArmstrong 1982: 198), ‘formalized’ (Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1994: 12) or involving ‘deliberative disciplined effort’ (Reference BrysonBryson 2011; Reference Bryson, Edwards and van SlykeBryson, Edwards and van Slyke 2018). There is, therefore, an implication that strategic planning is not something that people do informally in their heads, but that it involves a form of systematic and explicit analysis and that ‘strategic planning’ produces an ‘articulated product’ (Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1994: 12), in the form of texts or ‘strategic plans’. Reference Wolf and FloydWolf and Floyd (2017) define strategic planning as ‘a more or less formalized, periodic process that provides a structured approach to strategy formulation, implementation, and control’. This definition adds two other dimensions not necessarily present in all definitions but potentially significant (Reference Wolf and FloydWolf and Floyd 2017): strategy planning is here described as ‘periodic’ and as encompassing not simply strategy formulation but also ‘implementation and control’.
The discussion above suggests that there is still some fuzziness around what strategic planning is and means. We take this to be a reflection of the socially constructed, ambiguous and unstable nature of management terms (Reference GirouxGiroux 2006). We therefore do not provide our own final ‘definition’, at least in the sense intended above. It seems to us that ‘strategic planning’ is essentially a label that is applied to a varied and shifting set of practices that have something to do with the articulation of organizational strategic intent in the form of ‘strategic plans’. In other words, there is no final ‘correct’ or stable definition. This is evidenced, amongst other things, by the evolving nature of the skills mentioned in advertisements for strategic planning jobs over time (Reference Whittington, Yakis-Douglas, Ahn and CailluetWhittington et al. 2017). Nevertheless, the set of practices associated empirically with the label are of central interest to strategy-as-practice (SAP) scholars. It is their shape, content and dynamics that will be the central focus of this chapter.
Early Perspectives on Strategic Planning
The first treatises on strategy in the 1960s hailed ‘strategic planning’ as a critical corporate function (Reference AnsoffAnsoff 1965; Reference SteinerSteiner 1979). They viewed formal internal and external analyses and the establishment of objectives, goals and means as intrinsic to strategy formulation and indispensable for a firm’s performance and competitive advantage. Strategic planning was seen as the discipline within which an organization’s strategy was formed, so that optimal choices of structure, processes and markets for growth and change could be made (Reference AndrewsAndrews 1971; Reference AnsoffAnsoff 1965; Reference AnthonyAnthony 1965; Reference SteinerSteiner 1979).
Given the forceful advocacy of strategic planning by its early proponents, the question of its effectiveness naturally came under scrutiny, notably in the 1980s and 1990s. Countering the enthusiasm, certain writers argued that effective strategic action emerges informally and incrementally as actors learn from their experiences (Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1978; Reference Mintzberg and WatersMintzberg and Waters 1985; Reference QuinnQuinn 1980) and that such a process might or might not be supported by formalized planning systems (Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1994; Reference ZanZan 1987).
Stimulated by this debate, several scholars attempted to investigate the strategic planning/firm performance relationship through survey research (Reference ArmstrongArmstrong 1982; Reference BoydBoyd 1991; Reference Miller and CardinalMiller and Cardinal 1994; Reference Pearce, Freeman and RobinsonPearce, Freeman and Robinson 1987), sometimes contrasting more formal and less formal approaches (Reference Brews and HuntBrews and Hunt 1999). In these studies, questionnaire responses were used to determine the degree to which firms planned, or not, with little investigation of what that implied. Overall, these efforts led to weak and conflicting results. While Reference Miller and CardinalMiller and Cardinal (1994) conclude, based on a meta-analysis of extant studies, that the planning/performance relationship was generally positive, they also note that research methodology was the most important factor determining whether or not researchers found positive results. Among other things, the analysis showed that, when performance was self-assessed, correlations with planning were much higher, raising serious questions about the role of common method bias in these more positive studies (see also Reference George, Walker and MonsterGeorge, Walker and Monster 2019).
Other studies shifted attention to the ‘roles of strategic planning’. Researchers began to notice that strategic planning concerned several organizational processes that sometimes had little to do with strategy-making as such (Reference QuinnQuinn 1980). For example, strategic planning was found to be a useful tool for ‘public relations’ to legitimize organizations with external stakeholders (Reference LangleyLangley 1988; Reference Stone and BrushStone and Brush 1996). It might also serve as a platform for internal communication, potentially performing what Reference LangleyLangley (1988) describes as a ‘group therapy’ role. Strategic planning was also found to involve retrospective sensemaking of decisions already taken, and could be seen as a tool for ‘self-knowledge’ (Reference LangleyLangley 1988; Reference Mintzberg and WatersMintzberg and Waters 1985; Reference ZanZan 1987). Others noted that strategic planning often seemed to be more about ensuring strategy implementation and control rather than strategy formulation (Reference Allaire and FirsirotuAllaire and Firsirotu 1990; Reference LangleyLangley 1988). Thus, far from being a simple technical tool to achieve rational goals, strategic planning appears to be a fully social practice, in that its meaning and role depend on the way it is inserted into the organization’s social system.
This growing evidence led Reference MintzbergMintzberg (1994) to announce the death of strategic planning as a tool for strategy formulation in his influential treatise on its ‘rise and fall’. Despite his critique, however, and the virtual disappearance of academic interest in relating planning to performance, Mintzberg’s verdict appears to have been premature. As Reference Whittington and CailluetWhittington and Cailluet (2008) note, strategic planning discourse and practices have continued to flourish in strategy consulting firms (Reference Ocasio and JosephOcasio and Joseph 2008), appear to be widespread in many organizations (Reference Rigby and BilodeauRigby and Bilodeau 2018) and have been widely adopted in new industries (Reference Whittington and CailluetWhittington and Cailluet 2008), including the public and not-for-profit sectors (Reference Ferlie, Pettigrew, Thomas and WhittingtonFerlie 2002; Reference WhittingtonWhittington 2003).
The persistence of practices labelled ‘strategic planning’ in organizations despite bad press has attracted renewed academic attention to the topic, but this time with a different focus. In particular, SAP scholars have begun conducting more fine-grained analyses, opening up the black box of strategic planning to reveal its inner workings, and recognizing it as a complex social practice rather than a narrowly defined technical tool. This more recent work is the central focus of the rest of this chapter.
Strategic Planning as Practice: A Framework for Analysis
As we noted above, a central aspect of any strategic planning activity concerns the production of text or a set of texts (in particular, ‘strategic plans’) that in some way articulate organizational strategic intent. Thus, we argue that a full understanding of strategic planning as a social practice requires a consideration of both the nature of strategy texts themselves and the processes associated with their production and consumption (Reference Fenton and LangleyFenton and Langley 2011; Reference Pälli, Vaara and SorsaPälli, Vaara and Sorsa 2009), along with an appreciation of how these processes evolve over time. Thus, we propose to organize the extant knowledge on strategic planning as practice around four main foci (see Figure 33.1): textual practices (grouping research that examines strategic plans as potentially influential textual expressions of strategy); production practices (studies that address strategic planning as the process of generating strategy texts); consumption practices (studies that focus on whether and how strategy texts are mobilized, potentially influencing organizational action); and dynamics (research that addresses the ways in which practices evolve over time and are influenced by ongoing societal discourses). This approach enables a deeper consideration of how and why strategic planning may be related to strategic action by breaking down the process into several complementary parts.
Figure 33.1 A framework for considering strategic planning as a social practice
We have focused our framework around ‘text’ because this is a central element of strategic planning around which the activity generally revolves. Through the analysis of production and consumption practices, however, we reach beyond the text itself to capture the social practices surrounding it. We treat production and consumption practices generically in this chapter, and do not plunge deeply into specific phenomena that may be involved in them, such as meetings, workshops and tools, which are amply covered in other chapters of this volume. With its emphasis on certain communicative elements, our chapter is also complementary to Cooren et al. (Chapter 21 in this volume). In contrast to this chapter, however, Cooren et al. emphasize not the broad phenomenon of formalized strategic planning processes but the more ephemeral communicative moments in which strategy becomes an object of concern.
Textual Practices
To understand strategic planning as practice, an obvious departure point is to look at the textual expression of these practices in the form of strategic plans. Strategic plans can, in fact, be seen as constituting a particular ‘genre’ of communication (Reference Cornut, Giroux and LangleyCornut, Giroux and Langley 2012; Reference Pälli, Vaara and SorsaPälli, Vaara and Sorsa 2009) that has certain central, distinctive and institutionalized features. This genre exhibits some variation that may be related to specific contexts and purposes, however, such as variations in the narrative or rhetorical qualities of plans (Reference Chanal and TanneryChanal and Tannery 2007; Reference Lounsbury and GlynnLounsbury and Glynn 2001; Reference Martens, Jennings and JenningsMartens, Jennings and Jennings 2007; Reference Shaw, Brown and BromileyShaw, Brown and Bromiley 1998), in their relative degree of openness or ambiguity (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley 2014; Reference Denis, Langley and LozeauDenis, Langley and Lozeau 1991; Reference Stone and BrushStone and Brush 1996) or in their physical supports, which may include any or all of traditional reports, PowerPoint decks (Reference KaplanKaplan 2011), tabular summaries, web documents and sometimes even physical artefacts – such as the ‘strategy cube’ described by Reference Molloy and WhittingtonMolloy and Whittington (2005), when key strategies were inscribed in an object that could be placed on managers’ desks. In this review, we first consider what we know about the central generic qualities of strategic plans before exploring some of the important sources of variation.
Central Tendencies: The Strategic Plan as a Distinctive ‘Genre’ of Communication
Just as mystery novels and romances are two genres of literary writing that have distinctive and recognizable forms, there are distinctive institutionalized genres of business writing: organizational charts, job advertisements, recommendation letters – and strategic plans. Reference BhatiaBhatia (2004: 87) defines a ‘genre’ as a set of ‘conventionalized discursive actions in which participating individuals or institutions have shared perceptions of communicative purposes as well of constraints operating on their construction, interpretation and conditions of use’. Drawing on this definition, Reference Cornut, Giroux and LangleyCornut, Giroux and Langley (2012) and Reference Pälli, Vaara and SorsaPälli, Vaara and Sorsa (2009) attempted to explore the nature of the strategic plan as a genre of communication empirically.
Reference Cornut, Giroux and LangleyCornut, Giroux and Langley’s (2012) textual analysis of a corpus of public and third-sector organizations’ strategic plans finds distinctive linguistic and lexical features, including a prototypical move structure that corresponds to the set of professional norms diffused in business guides to strategic planning (Reference OlsenOlsen 2007); for example, it includes sections referring to strategic planning processes, mission and vision, context, strategies, goals and measures. Reference Cornut, Giroux and LangleyCornut, Giroux and Langley (2012) suggest that displaying strategy language in the text has the effect of expressing rigour and professionalism and ensuring legitimization. Similarly, for Reference Pälli, Vaara and SorsaPälli, Vaara and Sorsa (2009), the use of linguistic forms recognizable as the strategy genre (textual structures and concepts such as ‘vision’, ‘mission’, ‘critical success factors’, ‘strengths and weaknesses’) is not arbitrary but motivated by social convention. By conforming to the genre, an organization’s proposed actions are easily understandable, thus gaining legitimacy among stakeholders.
At the same time, conformity to the genre also contributes to reproducing a certain managerialist ideology, sometimes at the expense of other voices or rationalities (Reference MacCallumMacCallum 2008; Reference Vaara, Sorsa and PälliVaara, Sorsa and Pälli 2010). Vaara, Sorsa and Pälli argue that distinctive strategy terminology has performative effects. This creates not only legitimacy for the document and its content but also specific power positions: plans (and strategy texts in general) are ‘powerful devices through which specific objectives, values and ideologies – and not others – are promoted and legitimated’ (Reference Vaara, Sorsa and PälliVaara, Sorsa and Pälli 2010: 699). Thus, as strategic planning moves from business firms to public and not-for-profit sectors, it carries along with it some of the managerial assumptions inherent to the genre, with potentially significant effects on how individuals see their roles and their organizations (Reference Oakes, Townley and CooperOakes, Townley and Cooper 1998).
Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of planning texts in public and non-profit sectors, at least those studied by Reference Cornut, Giroux and LangleyCornut, Giroux and Langley (2012), suggests a form of writing that incorporates but also reaches beyond the managerial rationality conveyed by the generic set of strategy moves derived from the textbook. In comparing strategic plans with other forms of documents, Cornut, Giroux and Langley note an emphasis on inspirational and unifying language centred on collaboration, optimism and achievement. The linguistic tone and expression of these documents was inclusive and promotional, suggesting an orientation towards gaining consensus and commitment from organizational members (Reference Stone and BrushStone and Brush 1996). In their detailed study of a city strategic plan, Reference Eriksson and LehtimäkiEricksson and Lehtimäki (2001) see similar emphasis on consensus and cooperation, as well as on what they call ‘developmental optimism’. Using a critical lens, however, they interpret this as a form of ‘participation by command’ in which planning is presented as participative but in reality is clearly mandated and controlled from the top. They note that, despite the emphasis on collaboration and consensus, orientations are presented according to a ‘rhetoric of necessity’ (expressions such as ‘must’, ‘require’ and ‘demand’) in which potential alternatives are suppressed. Reference Vaara, Sorsa and PälliVaara, Sorsa and Pälli (2010) refer to this phenomenon as ‘deonticity’ – that is, a form of disguised imperative, in which the final text serves as the formal closure of a (forced) consensus on priorities, despite individual differences of opinion in the process. Clearly, a central feature of the genre is the production of a list of strategies that expresses what the organization will do, and this necessarily appears to eliminate alternatives, turning proposals into ‘facts’ (Reference Cornut, Giroux and LangleyCornut, Giroux and Langley 2012). Nevertheless, as we shall see later, this does not imply that plans eliminate uncertainty or ambiguity.
Overall, Reference BhatiaBhatia’s (2004) definition of a genre of communication emphasizes that different generic elements may serve different communicative purposes. Earlier studies concerning the roles of strategic planning introduced above (Reference LangleyLangley 1988; Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1994) suggest that plans may play many roles and have many audiences. While the basic generic set of moves may remain the same, each of the different audiences and communicative purposes may reorient the emphasis of the writing. In addition, the evolution of techniques and discourses for strategy development (e.g., scenario planning versus balanced scorecard methods) and of media (such as PowerPoint versus Word documents versus graphics) will also result in different textual forms, suggesting that, although the strategic plan follows certain generic patterns, those patterns may allow variation and evolve over time (see Figure 33.1). Different types of organizations may also generate different types of writing. Indeed, because of availability issues, studies of the textual features of strategic plans in private sector organizations have historically been less frequent, and merit further investigation. Possibly, recent trend towards ‘Open Strategy’, implying greater transparency and inclusion in strategy-making (Reference Whittington, Cailluet and Yakis-DouglasWhittington, Cailluest and Yakis-Douglas 2011), might change this, but that remains to be seen. Below, we elaborate on two other ways in which communicative purposes and textual forms may be interrelated.
Rhetorical Variations: Narratives, Lists and Other Devices
Within the overall genre, a number of studies have focused on specific rhetorical forms. For example, strategic plans can be written in the form of a narrative or story, or, rather, emphasizing a listing of goals. The bullet point ‘list’ form may actually be increasing with the pervasive use of PowerPoint for planning documents. Overall, however, studies suggest that the more plans are written extensively and coherently, the more they are able to convey meaning and persuade (Reference Lounsbury and GlynnLounsbury and Glynn 2001; Reference Martens, Jennings and JenningsMartens, Jennings and Jennings 2007; Reference Shaw, Brown and BromileyShaw, Brown and Bromiley 1998).
For example, by analysing the contents of several strategy texts in which a manager was communicating a group’s strategy to the relevant stakeholders, Reference Chanal and TanneryChanal and Tannery (2007) argue that the reasoning underlying the overall strategic direction is at least as important as the specification of concrete actions and performance measurement. In contrasting strategic plans presented in the form of ‘stories’ with those written in bullet point form, Reference Shaw, Brown and BromileyShaw, Brown and Bromiley (1998) argue that, in order to convey meaning in a strategic plan, a narrative connecting the firm’s situation and challenges with its future actions is needed in which the organization is implicitly conceived as a ‘hero’ and the proposed strategy is depicted as the solution (see also Reference Barry and ElmesBarry and Elmes 1997). Besides an overall narrative structure, the features of ‘narrative probability’ (the internal coherence of the narrative) and ‘narrative fidelity’ (whether the narrative rings true with what is already known) are raised by Reference Lounsbury and GlynnLounsbury and Glynn (2001) and Reference Martens, Jennings and JenningsMartens, Jennings and Jennings (2007) as elements that are more likely to persuade readers. Thus, resonance with expectations, alignment with cultural norms or grand narratives and credibility with third parties will contribute to persuasiveness. In particular, in a study of the business plans for new ventures, Reference Martens, Jennings and JenningsMartens, Jennings and Jennings (2007) find that plans that construct a ‘comprehensible identity for the organization’, that provided links between the past and the future in a plausible sequence and that combined new and unfamiliar elements in a coherent way are more likely to be financed by venture capitalists than those that do not have these features.
While list-like representations of strategy may not be persuasive, some studies have nevertheless shown that when deployed by skilled practitioners, visual displays and tools enabled by media such as PowerPoint can be influential in orienting audiences towards particular options, particularly when combined judiciously with verbal explanations (Reference Knight, Paroutis and HeracleousKnight, Paroutis and Heracleous 2018; Reference Paroutis, Franco and PapadopoulosParoutis, Franco and Papadopoulos 2015).
Finally, researchers have explored a number of other rhetorical features and their effects. For example, a particular feature of plans in public or non-profit contexts may be the use of what Reference Pälli, Vaara and SorsaPälli, Vaara and Sorsa (2009) refer to as ‘metadiscourses’ – for example, segments explaining the logic of strategic planning and justifying why a strategy document is needed. These metadiscourses contribute to legitimizing the plan and its contents in sectors in which such tools are less familiar. Indeed, in addition to emphasizing specific rhetorics, Reference Chanal and TanneryChanal and Tannery (2007) stress the ability to alternate different rhetorical forms within the same text – such as means–ends arguments/value or symbolic arguments/evaluation arguments – as a device to persuade heterogeneous stakeholders simultaneously. The challenge of producing plans in multi-stakeholder settings is best captured, however, through the notion of ‘strategic ambiguity’, discussed next.
Strategic Plans as Open and Ambiguous versus Closed and Selective
Another form of textual variety is associated with the degree of openness and ambiguity of planning texts. For example, strategic plans may be written to be more inclusive (aiming to satisfy a variety of stakeholders) or more exclusive (prioritizing certain choices and not others) in the array of strategies and goals displayed. They may be ambitious or rather specific and they can be explicitly open to subsequent interpretation and rethinking to a greater or lesser extent. Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley (2014) relate these features to the notion of ‘strategic ambiguity’, introduced by Reference EisenbergEisenberg (1984), to describe situations in which communicators deliberately formulate messages so as to allow multiple interpretations. In contrast to received views, in which ambiguity in communication is perceived as undesirable, Eisenberg argues for its benefits, suggesting that ambiguity in communication stimulates creativity, facilitates ‘unity in diversity’ (by permitting a variety of people with different perspectives to value the message) and enables change.
As several authors have suggested, the more inclusive plans are, and the more unfocused and ambitious their goals, the more they allow for conflict absorption (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley 2014; Reference Denis, Langley and LozeauDenis, Langley and Lozeau 1991; Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. 2011). On paper, such plans seem to offer ‘something for everyone’, although they may not provide a basis for prioritization. Conflict absorption through inclusiveness and broad ambitious goals may be particularly common for strategic plans in public contexts, professional bureaucracies or other pluralistic settings in which power is diffuse and top management needs to minimize conflict while seeking some kind of consensus around strategic directions (Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. 2011).
Ambiguity in textual representations can take a variety of linguistic and semantic forms (Reference GirouxGiroux 2006). Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley (2014) emphasize three that were present in the documents they studied: the presence of dualities (i.e., elements that seemed to be in partial contradiction with one another; see also Reference Daigle and RouleauDaigle and Rouleau 2010), the use of equivocal language (i.e., undefined words or phrases subject to multiple interpretations) and content expansiveness (i.e., large numbers of strategies with no limitations or precise goals). Other devices that may signal ambiguity include equivocal commitments from stakeholders to the document expressed in signatures with escape clauses and loopholes (Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. 2011; Reference Wodak, Mungtigl, Weiss and WodakWodak 2000), strategies that propose further study or otherwise postpone critical issues (Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. 2011) and the extensive use of metaphors and labels (Reference KelemenKelemen 2000). Such devices, intentional or not (and there is often little evidence about intention), have been found in many studies of strategic plans (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley 2014; Reference Chanal and TanneryChanal and Tannery 2007; Reference Daigle and RouleauDaigle and Rouleau 2010; Reference Denis, Langley and LozeauDenis, Langley and Lozeau 1991; Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. 2011) and have often been considered by the authors as ways to overcome difficulties in achieving agreement, or sometimes as devices to stimulate creativity (Reference Davenport and LeitchDavenport and Leitch 2005; Reference Gioia and ChittipeddiGioia and Chittipeddi 1991). Ambiguity of meaning seems, in the end, to be a frequent and essential part of strategy work manifested in texts themselves, but, as we shall see later, also partly constructed through the production and consumption of these texts.
Overall, we see that strategic plans have a certain generic form, in which strategies are described and justified on the basis of a set of distinctive rhetorical moves. Strategic plans are generally written in a way that expresses seemingly consensual ‘organizational’ orientations, suppressing alternatives and disagreements. Moreover, the more they express a coherent narrative, the more they are likely to be appealing to outsiders. The need for consensus may also be associated with ambiguity and content expansion, however, especially in pluralistic settings. We now explore in more detail the social practices of production that generate these texts.
Production Practices
Most of the research on strategic planning as a social practice has focused on the practices of production of strategic plans – that is, on the processes through which textual expressions of strategy are generated: the ‘writing’ or formulation of plans. Studies have focused on the formal processes adopted (Reference GrantGrant 2003; Reference Ocasio and JosephOcasio and Joseph 2008), the involvement of different types of people (Reference Appleyard and ChesbroughAppleyard and Chesbrough 2017; Reference Lusiani and LangleyLusiani and Langley 2013; Reference Nordqvist and MelinNordqvist and Melin 2008; Reference Splitter, Jarzabkowski and SeidlSplitter, Jarzabkowski and Seidl 2021), and the analytical, communicative, interactive and material elements that contribute to the construction of formalized and articulated expressions of strategy (Reference Belmondo and Sargis‐RousselBelmondo and Sargis-Roussel 2015; Reference Bencherki, Sergi, Cooren and VásquezBencherki et al. 2021; Reference Jarzabkowski and BalogunJarzabkowski and Balogun 2009; Reference KaplanKaplan 2011; Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee and Jarzabkowski 2011). In this review, we emphasize two dimensions: the shape of participation and the mechanisms of integration that enable convergence on a unique strategic document.
Indeed, underlying the practices that generate strategic plans is the idea that, whoever actually pens their specific content, the texts that emerge from these processes represent the strategic intent of the collective units that own them – in most cases, the organization, but possibly also an organizational sub-unit (business unit, division or department), or a wider community. In other words, strategic planning processes ‘construct’ a macro-actor with ostensibly shared collective intent, regardless of any fragmentation that may underlie the textual representation of unity. For example, Reference Kornberger and CleggKornberger and Clegg (2011: 150) claim that, in the creation of a strategy document for the city of Sydney, ‘[t]he strategy process simultaneously constituted a community and made claim to represent the voice of that community’. Reference Vásquez, Bencherki, Cooren and SergiVasquez et al. (2018) go further, showing in considerable detail how, through communicative practices among members of a Housing Association in meetings, matters of concern come to be recognized as the strategic expression of a collective.
Beyond representing the collective intent of an already existing organization, strategic plans may sometimes contribute to establishing the existence of new identities. For example, Reference Bryson, Crosby and BrysonBryson, Crosby and Bryson (2009) describe a case involving the formulation of mission, goals and strategies for MetroGIS, an organization specifically created to foster the widespread sharing of geospatial information among a large number of public organizations of two main towns. This coordinating entity did not exist prior to the planning process, and the production of a plan served to give this new organization life, identity and legitimacy. In general, however, the construction of credible collective intent implies some kind of legitimate participation of the collective or its representatives in determining it, raising interesting questions about the shape of participation, as well as about the mechanisms by which convergence is achieved among potentially divergent perspectives. We now pursue these questions.
The Shape of Participation
Traditionally, producing strategic plans has been considered to be the business of top management, and senior managers are de facto central to their formulation and to their legitimacy (Reference Mantere and VaaraMantere and Vaara 2008). The explicitly ‘organizational’ character of strategic plans implies that they need to draw together and incorporate information and ideas from multiple sources, however. Thus, depending on the nature of the organizational context (centralization of power; size and complexity in terms of divisions and sub-units; the dispersion of expertise and knowledge, the open source nature of the organization), participation in planning processes may be more or less widely diffused. Participation may thus take various forms and be more or less open and democratic (Reference Whittington, Cailluet and Yakis-DouglasWhittington, Cailluet and Yakis-Douglas 2011) or technical, channelled and ritualistic (Reference Mantere and VaaraMantere and Vaara 2008; Reference Westphal, Zhu and KunapuliWestphal, Zhu and Kunapuli 2021). It remains the case, however, that, in many situations, multiple individuals are likely to be mobilized to participate in the formulation of strategic plans. The literature reveals several patterns of participation.
Top-down Participation.
A first type of production practice is top-down-driven strategic planning, which we label ‘purely hierarchical’, in which it is top management alone that formulates the goals and the directions of a company. The planning process certainly involves other organizational actors in lower-level positions, such as middle managers, for vertical consultation, but the control over the process remains at the top of the hierarchy. This pattern appears most likely for smaller entrepreneurially driven firms. For example, Reference Nordqvist and MelinNordqvist and Melin’s (2008) study of middle-sized family businesses shows how strategic planning was led top-down by knowledgeable ‘champions’: a consultant, in one case, and a board member, in the other – people who clearly had the ear of the chief executive and whose interventions were largely directed to assisting him/her with training, systematic strategic analysis and the application of strategy tools. In a somewhat more diffuse version of hierarchical planning in a utility company, Reference LangleyLangley (1988) notes that the central thrust of the strategic plan was mainly inspired by the CEO, who established overarching goals yet involved planning staff in collating insights and information from other managers. Middle managers were required to specify initiatives that would meet key goals, enabling the development of commitment and legitimizing the process, but the overall parameters remained negotiable only at the margins.
Mid-level-up Participation.
The larger and the more complex the firm in terms of units and geographical spread, the more likely it is that middle managers at unit levels will exert autonomy in the development of strategies, yet these strategies are also likely to be negotiated amongst levels in a form of ‘composite hierarchy’. In this form, hierarchy remains central, though initiative is partially devolved locally. For example, Reference Jarzabkowski and BalogunJarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) describe various kinds of negotiated interactions between levels in their study of market strategy development in a multidivisional consumer products firm. Reference GrantGrant (2003) finds that, by the late 1990s, strategy formulation in the oil majors was occurring mostly at the business unit level and outside the central corporate planning system, with strategic decisions being made in response to environmental stimuli that appeared locally, and only subsequently incorporated into corporate strategic plans. He calls this ‘planned emergence’ and describes it at that time as a feature of the modern practice of strategic planning. A similar trend is reported by Reference Ocasio and JosephOcasio and Joseph’s (2008) reconstruction of the strategic planning process at General Electric over six CEO regimes, between 1940 and the present: strategic planning became increasingly shared between corporate executives and operating unit managers. In essence, the production of strategic plans, at least in large, multidivisional companies, is, rather, a process of top-level coordination and control of the strategies that are formulated vertically by middle managers at the unit level.
As can be seen, this form of vertically interactive planning process inherently embeds an element of control in which written commitments from lower-level managers, negotiated through planning, become explicit or implicit contracts for subsequent action (Reference Allaire and FirsirotuAllaire and Firsirotu 1990). The more planning systems are embedded in hierarchical control arrangements (especially if they are connected to incentives), the more the issues of gaming and conservatism critiqued by Reference MintzbergMintzberg (1994) may take hold as people come to realize that their collaboration can have potentially undesirable consequences in terms of the demands that may be placed on them later. We return to this later, but for the moment we note that there are clearly feedback loops between patterns of consumption of strategic plans and subsequent production.
Bottom-up Participation.
In some types of organizations production practices may be formally organized to be more widely and explicitly participative than we have indicated so far (Reference Mantere and VaaraMantere and Vaara 2008). In this type of production practice professionals or lower-level employees actively engage with other units in the organization’s strategic conversation. For example, in pluralistic settings such as hospitals (Reference Denis, Langley and LozeauDenis, Langley and Lozeau 1991; Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. 2011; Reference LangleyLangley 1988; Reference Lusiani and LangleyLusiani and Langley 2019), arts organizations (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley 2014; Reference LangleyLangley 1988; Reference Oakes, Townley and CooperOakes, Townley and Cooper 1998), cities (Reference Kornberger and CleggKornberger and Clegg 2011; Reference MacCallumMacCallum 2008; Reference Vaara, Sorsa and PälliVaara, Sorsa and Pälli 2010; Reference Sorsa and VaaraSorsa and Vaara 2020), universities (Reference Gioia and ChittipeddiGioia and Chittipeddi 1991; Reference Gioia, Thomas, Clark and ChittipeddiGioia et al. 1994; Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee and Jarzabkowski 2011; Reference Spee and Jarzabkowski2017) and not-for-profit organizations (Reference Stone and BrushStone and Brush 1996; Reference Vásquez, Bencherki, Cooren and SergiVasquez et al. 2018), reports of planning practices reveal not only substantial processes of vertical consultation between levels but also, and perhaps more significantly, collective horizontal negotiations and consultations involving potentially competing interests. Indeed, it is clear that, in such settings, no formal strategic planning document claiming to represent the collective would be likely to achieve some level of minimal legitimacy without some form of organized participation among professionals or other key stakeholders, with the relative importance and involvement of different groups depending on the particular context as well as on the choices made by senior managers.
Open Participation.
Over the years, a particular type of participative production practice has developed, called ‘Open Strategy’ (Reference Chesbrough and AppleyardChesbrough and Appleyard 2007). The term indicates increased transparency and inclusion regarding strategic issues, involving not only internal, but also external, stakeholders (Reference Whittington, Cailluet and Yakis-DouglasWhittington, Cailluet and Yakis-Douglas 2011). This was largely favoured by the spread of social media, platforms and digital technologies in organizations, affording unparalleled possibilities for including actors in cocreative efforts to respond to strategic issues or shape the organization’s strategy (Reference Mount, Clegg and PitsisMount, Clegg and Pitsis 2020). A whole chapter of this volume (Dobusch, Hautz and Ortner, Chapter 37) is dedicated to this practice, but it is important to note it here as one particular type of production practice attracting increasing practitioners’ and research attention that is not without challenges (Reference Hautz, Seidl and WhittingtonHautz, Seidl and Whittington 2017; Reference Heracleous, Gößwein and BeaudetteHeracleous, Gößwein and Beaudette 2018). In particular, in some cases, the intended participation of employees or external communities in strategic planning may drift to the point of undermining the participation of others, for example limiting the middle managers’ ability to enact their strategic activities (Reference Splitter, Jarzabkowski and SeidlSplitter, Jarzabkowski and Seidl 2021). This is a severe consequence, given the importance of middle managers for ensuring goal congruence and strategy implementation, and leads us to a reflection on the concurrent need of mechanisms of integration and convergence in participative production practices. Clearly, the wider the ostensible participation, the more difficult it is to bring divergent perspectives together. The next section considers more carefully the research that has looked at modes of integration.
Mechanisms of Integration and Convergence
Several authors have suggested that the openness of strategic planning processes has often been exaggerated, and that processes that are claimed to be participative are often carefully channelled (Reference Lusiani and LangleyLusiani and Langley 2013), or even manipulated (Reference Kornberger and CleggKornberger and Clegg 2011; Reference Westphal, Zhu and KunapuliWestphal, Zhu and Kunapuli 2021), to achieve a predetermined result. Openness inevitably requires closure too, and the literature identifies different mechanisms of integration that can enable organizations to converge on a coherent outcome.
Rhetorical Strategies.
These include the purposeful orchestration of selected voices, the presentation of selected evidence, the use of numbers, the timing of presentation and other rhetorical practices. For example, from a critical perspective, Reference Kornberger and CleggKornberger and Clegg (2011) describe how the production of a strategy document in the City of Sydney was constructed through an extensive consultation process based on focus groups, town hall meetings and online discussion forums, but at the same time how the plan organized the voices of both ‘experts’ and ‘the public’, so that the former would contribute authority and the latter legitimacy to the process. Participation here was carefully orchestrated in such a way as to reinforce the power of those at the centre. For example, experts with opposing opinions were not invited to participate in the same meetings, and the public’s participation was oriented towards issues of long-term development rather than immediate problems that might have created greater tension.
Similarly, Reference Denis, Langley and RouleauDenis, Langley and Rouleau (2006) show how a planning process aimed at closing hospitals within a large city was orchestrated through extensive public hearings. Their study reveals several mechanisms that can contribute to convergence and integration in planning processes despite their openness. These include, in this case, the mobilization of apparently objective quantitative indicators. The bringing to bear of selected ‘evidence’ – the analytical dimension of strategic planning – can clearly serve as a valuable mechanism to influence shared understanding, as has also been noted by other observers of planning practices such as Reference GiraudeauGiraudeau (2008) and Reference KaplanKaplan (2011), as well as those adopting a more normative view of strategic planning.
Even so, Reference Denis, Langley and RouleauDenis, Langley and Rouleau (2006) suggest that, on their own, numbers and objective evidence are not enough. They argue that the framing of options in ways that aligned majority interests and values with the desired result, as well as the timing of the presentation of these options, contributed to channelling participants towards a particular outcome. In addition, the public demonstration of competence, consistency and transparency among the plan’s proponents as they argued their position and listened to others further enhanced its legitimacy and potential for acceptance. Clearly, control over the agenda and process of strategic planning, as well as ultimate control over the pen that formulates the final text, remain sources of power whatever transpires in between (Reference Pälli, Vaara and SorsaPälli, Vaara and Sorsa 2009; Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee and Jarzabkowski 2011).
Negotiation Strategies.
Beyond the persuasive efforts of top managers (whether through rational argument supported by numbers, political savvy or agenda manipulation), participative processes will not be fully legitimate unless some actual movement and negotiation occurs, and can be seen to have occurred, as plans are debated. Thus, studies of strategic plan production practices have also looked at the nature, content and consequences of such negotiations. A particularly interesting study in this genre is that by Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee and Jarzabkowski (2011; Reference Spee and Jarzabkowski2017), who recorded the deliberations of a strategic planning committee in a university over a period of twelve months in real time. Interactive discussions around the text, and debates over wording, were eventually restructured into a new text that, in turn, tended to structure subsequent interactions. Spee and Jarzabkowski suggest that, as a result, authority is given to the text, and legitimacy to certain courses of action, while previously conflicting value issues are apparently resolved. An interesting question is what happens to texts when such negotiations occur. There are suggestions in Spee and Jarzabkowski’s work, and in other analyses of communicative interactions around strategic planning (see Reference Bencherki, Sergi, Cooren and VásquezBencherki et al. 2021; Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. 2011; Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee et al. 2017; Reference Tracy and AshcraftTracy and Ashcraft 2001; Reference WegnerWegner 2004), that wording disputes may not always be resolved in ways that clarify meanings but, rather, in ways that may multiply interpretive possibilities in order to accommodate the perspectives of different stakeholders.
This brings us to a related integration mechanism: that of strategic ambiguity – a notion that we introduced in the previous section as inherent to strategic planning texts, especially those emerging in pluralistic settings. There is clear evidence that extensive negotiations among people with divergent goals will tend to favour both the proliferation of planned initiatives and their framing in ways that provide opportunities for reinterpretation. Thus, participative planning may alter the shape of strategic plans in several ways. On the one hand, as Reference Jarzabkowski and BalogunJarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) show, groups that lay the strongest claims to autonomy in strategic planning are likely to exert pressure to be heard, and may acquire significant influence on plans, while nevertheless compromising to a degree with top-down requirements. On the other hand, plans are likely to become more complex and unwieldy overall, as writers struggle to integrate diverse perspectives.
Integrative tools.
The orchestration of participative production practices can be facilitated by the use of certain integrative tools as well. For example, some scholars have highlighted the role of visual artefacts in achieving convergence. Notably, Reference KaplanKaplan (2011) uses the term ‘cartography’ to describe how PowerPoint decks could orient decisions by deciding which slides to present in which order and how. Reference Paroutis, Franco and PapadopoulosParoutis, Franco and Papadopoulos (2015) showed how strategists interacted over a visual tool – a cognitive map – during strategy workshops, and how this enabled them to converge on a common understanding. Similarly, Reference Belmondo and Sargis‐RousselBelmondo and Sargis-Roussel (2015) showed how strategy tools (e.g., SWOT) produce several strategy objects (e.g., partial draft plans, or reports) that make explicit the user’s language, meaning and intentions, materializing agreements and disagreements. Beyond visual artefacts, other tools are important too. For example, Reference Dobusch, Dobusch and Müller-SeitzDobusch, Dobusch and Müller-Seitz (2019), analysing the Wikimedia open strategic planning process, find that firm procedures are needed to allow for open content creation. In other terms, policies for procedural closure are an important tool of integration in Open Strategy content creation.
Integration through people.
Finally, another mechanism that may facilitate integration in participative situations is the use of ‘boundary spanners’ – that is, actors who can contribute by finding ways to harmonize different views, in part because of their location in the organization, and/or because of their personal experience and qualities. Reference Lusiani and LangleyLusiani and Langley (2019) highlight the contribution of planning staff in the case of a hospital they studied. These professionals, led by a person with medical training, acted at the borders between the accounting/management functions and the clinical/professional values of physicians. In the participative planning system of this organization, the planners provided far more than technical support: they were able to translate the logic of resources, goals and targets into a language that was meaningful for physicians, and at the same time they could make physicians’ needs and initiatives transparent or understandable to the administration. Although they were acting in the shadows, boundary spanners such as these could clearly be a valuable and influential resource for the construction of a collective perspective within a planning process.
In summary, the present section has explored research on practices of production of strategic plans, focusing in particular on the social contexts of their production (the shape of participation) and the mechanisms that enable passage from the disparate individual understandings, motivations and intentions of organizational stakeholders and a collective expression of organizational intent that has a certain authority and legitimacy. In the next section we consider what happens next. Once plans are produced, how are they consumed?
Consumption Practices
In theory, plans are intended to be guides for action. The relationship between plans and subsequent organizational actions is one of the least studied areas of strategic management, however. Scholars have studied the design of structures and control systems for strategy implementation, while the research on how organizations make sense of and enact these plans in practice is still very fragmented (Reference Friesl, Stensaker and ColmanFriesl, Stensaker and Colman 2021; Reference Weiser, Jarzabkowski and LaamanenWeiser, Jarzabkowski and Laamanen 2020). Surprisingly, even studies that attempt to examine the relationship between strategic planning and performance have paid very little attention to whether or not plans have been implemented, or whether and how they are used or exert their influence.
To discuss the practices associated with the appropriation and use of strategic plans, we draw here on the notion of ‘consumption’, suggested by Reference de Certeaude Certeau (1988), to refer to how people are able to creatively take an imposed product of any kind, such as a strategic plan, and ‘read’ it in their own particular, individualistic ways, mobilizing it in their everyday practices in ways that were perhaps not foreseen by its originators. There is, therefore, a strong relationship between the notion of ‘consumption’ and that of ‘affordance’ (Reference Jarzabkowski and KaplanJarzabkowski and Kaplan 2015), in the sense that the latter implies the former.
Among studies that have considered the consumption practices associated with strategic plans, several have focused on affordances created by the way they are written, in particular the role of ambiguity in enabling a variety of forms of consumption. For example, Reference GiraudeauGiraudeau (2008) emphasizes the potentially creative nature of strategic plans as approaches to sensemaking that leave room for collective reflection, flexibility and development. Similarly, with evidence from a university context and with a focus on a specific strategy resulting from a planning cycle, Reference Azad and ZablithAzad and Zablith (2021) examined the role of strategy visualization techniques in enabling the understanding of strategy and enactment by employees. Others have noted the multiple ways in which ambiguity in strategic orientations may be received. For example, Reference Jarzabkowski, Sillince and ShawJarzabkowski, Sillince and Shaw (2010) examined how members of a business school consumed the strategically ambiguous goal of ‘internationalization’, and they show that modes of interpretation varied along two dimensions: breadth (narrow or broad interpretations) and accommodativeness (emphasis on personal or broader interests). Drawing on the same data, Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski and Shaw (2012) show how academics and managers differentially constructed ambiguity around a strategic goal either to protect themselves from having to do anything (e.g., by doubting its value, denying its personal relevance or condemning its lack of clarity), to invite others to participate (e.g., by arguing for inevitability or assigning responsibilities) or to take an ‘adaptive stance’ (by presenting the goal as an impression management activity). These studies show how ambiguity can be exploited by individual readers but also reconstructed by them in different ways.
In their study of strategic planning in an arts organization, Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley (2014) identify four modes of consumption or readings of strategic plans: interpretive, instrumental, value-driven and detached. ‘Interpretive’ readings are characteristic of those whose staff-related jobs are associated with attempting to ensure the implementation of strategic plans, and they involve efforts to stamp out ambiguity and use planning documents to structure the work of other managers and staff to establish control and direction. ‘Instrumental’ readings are those in which people draw on planning documents to determine and justify their own personal actions. It is here that plans are perhaps most influential, as people define themselves and their roles with respect to the plan. For these people, the plan essentially creates well-defined ‘subject positions’ that suggest specific modes of behaviour (see also Reference Fenton and LangleyFenton and Langley 2011). ‘Value-based’ readings are those in which the principles and values of the plan are perceived as relevant, offering opportunities and encouragement to pursue preferred objectives, but in which there are few limitations or boundaries on the ways in which initiatives may be pursued; plans are treated as broad reference points rather than specific guides for action. Finally, ‘detached’ readings are more cynical. Plans are read as irrelevant or as reproducing orientations that are already well established. While resistance may not be overt, detached readers denigrate strategic plans as political management tools of limited value and may undermine attempts to impose particular interpretations.
Thus, Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley (2014) reveal that multiple forms of consumption of the same strategic plan may coexist in any given situation. These forms possess a certain generality that might be found among potential consumers in a variety of settings. By way of comparison, in an interview study across three organizations, Reference Suominen, Mantere, Baum and LampelSuominen and Mantere (2010) note three forms of consumption of the notion of strategy, which they label instrumental, playful and intimate. These bear some relation to those mentioned above. Reference Sorsa, Pälli and MikkolaSorsa, Pälli and Mikkola (2014) further showed the multiple ways in which employees and managers drew on strategy in the context of performance appraisal interviews, sometimes to compare its abstract nature ‘up there’ with everyday concrete work ‘down here’, sometimes as a reference for particular concepts that might orient their activities, and sometimes simply as a physical document.
While Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley’s (2014) findings suggest some generic forms of consumption that might occur in a variety of settings, the authors further show how these interact and how ambiguity in strategy texts may lead to a paradoxical pattern of outcomes. They observe that, although strategic ambiguity initially produces positive consequences because of its enabling qualities, in terms of promoting unity in diversity and stimulating strategic change (see also Reference Gioia and ChittipeddiGioia and Chittipeddi 1991; Reference Gioia, Nag and CorleyGioia, Nag and Corley 2012), over the longer term it becomes problematic, as multiple interpretations increasingly conflict and as the ambitious and wide-ranging set of activities enabled by ambiguous plans encounter resource constraints. The paradoxical effects of ambiguity are also revealed in Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al.’s (2011) study of strategic planning in a large teaching hospital. The tension here lay between the short-term benefits of creating the appearance of consensus during the production process and the long-term problems of attempting to implement complex, interdependent recommendations that embedded profound contradictions. Clearly, there are important interactive effects between practices of production, the textual forms they produce and their future consequences.
In considering modes of consumption of strategic plans, it is also important to be aware that, despite their embeddedness in formal texts, their immutability across space and time as reflections of organizational strategic intent can be fragile. First of all, texts must be recognized as strategic to sustain their authority (Reference Vásquez, Bencherki, Cooren and SergiVasquez et al. 2018). Moreover, as Reference Aggerholm, Asmuß and ThomsenAggerholm, Asmuß and Thomsen (2012) illustrate, written plans can be recontextualized in various other kinds of communication, and such recontextualizations may well reopen truces and resurrect ambiguities that had previously been absorbed within collectively generated texts. Strategic plans are likely to maintain their power and influence only to the extent that the discourse reflected within them is continually and consistently reinforced and reproduced through sensegiving practices. When the principal authors and writers of strategic plans renege on their own writing in their own consumption practices, it may be particularly hard to sustain commitment from others. Indeed, Reference Lusiani and LangleyLusiani and Langley (2019) show how the mundane activities of project management processes and the day-to-day work of administrative employees is fundamental in constructing and sustaining the coherence of a hospital strategic plan through practices of ‘fuelling’, ‘shaping’ and ‘entwining’ mutually compatible meanings, in interaction among different people and tools.
In summary, while the literature has suggested a variety of different modes of consumption and has hinted at their relationship with textual and production practices, there appears to be a need for further research on consumption practices. The relative lack of research in this area may perhaps derive from a suspicion that many strategic planning exercises have limited lifetimes beyond their production. It would seem important to better understand the linkages between strategic planning and strategic action, however, even if the answers may lie in unexpected places. For example, it could be that strategic action often precedes or accompanies planning rather than following it, and it could be that strategic plans serve more to legitimize and consolidate strategic directions than to determine them. These issues remain to be investigated further, however.
Dynamics
Another area in which studies of strategic planning as a social practice is limited concerns the dynamics of these practices over time, both within particular organizations and beyond. As illustrated in Figure 33.1, strategic practices, including those of strategic planning, are influenced by a wide variety of societal discourses. Strategic planning is far from a stable practice as Reference Whittington, Yakis-Douglas, Ahn and CailluetWhittington et al. (2017) illustrate in their study of advertisements for strategic planners between 1960 and 2003. Different tools and techniques have come and sometimes gone (e.g., portfolio matrices, learning curves, SWOT analysis, five forces, shareholder value calculations, scenarios and the balanced scorecard) but the label ‘strategic planning’ has stuck, and it remains as an umbrella concept covering all of these. Beyond specific tools, the ‘open innovation’ movement and the development of social media has led to interest in ‘Open Strategy’ and ‘crowdsourcing’ methods that broaden participation as described above (Reference Baptista, Wilson, Galliers and BynghallBaptista et al. 2017). We need to better understand how different toolkits and approaches channel the shape and form of strategic planning practices in different ways. As tools have come and gone, so also have different societal concerns that might influence the content of strategies. For example, issues of social responsibility and environmental impact have increasingly penetrated understandings of what strategy is about (Reference Gond, Cabantous and KrikorianGond, Cabantous and Krikorian 2018), with further potential consequences for planning practices.
Beyond developing a more general understanding of how planning practices have evolved over time, there would also be value in examining how strategic planning practices evolve more specifically within individual organizations, influenced not just by these societal discourses but also by developments within the firm, and through learning and adaptation processes over time. Reference Ocasio and JosephOcasio and Joseph’s (2008) archival study of strategic planning at General Electric achieves this to some extent, showing how turnover in CEOs was regularly associated with shifting patterns of strategic planning (including relabelling, shifting the roles of staffs and redesigning formal procedures) even as certain elements of the practice were continued over sixty years.
Although Reference Ocasio and JosephOcasio and Joseph’s (2008) paper is instructive, its reliance on archival data does not allow a fine-grained understanding of how and why planning practices evolve over time in the same organization. We suggest that dynamic feedback effects may be under-researched. For example, we know that some firms install ‘planning cycles’ that are repeated annually or at regular intervals. Repetition is likely to create boredom, however, as well as learning about how to game the system. For example, conservatism is likely to set in if people realize from one cycle to the next that inputs they have made to the plan will be turned into demands that they would rather not have. Conversely, people may begin to realize that any projects they may want to invest in will need to be incorporated into the document if they are to receive attention, creating an inflationary rush. Either way, strategic planning systems are likely to lose their freshness over time, demanding constant renewal and rethinking.
Reference Jalonen, Schildt and VaaraJalonen, Schildt and Vaara (2018) and Reference Sorsa and VaaraSorsa and Vaara (2020) are rare authors who have studied strategic planning in depth within the same organizational context (a city in both cases) over multiple iterations (three iterations in the case of Reference Sorsa and VaaraSorsa and Vaara 2020; and six successive cycles in the case of Reference Jalonen, Schildt and VaaraJalonen, Schildt and Vaara 2018). Reference Jalonen, Schildt and VaaraJalonen, Schildt and Vaara (2018) show how the strategic concept of self-responsibility was introduced into planning processes and became legitimated as relevant over time, but ultimately faded, and moved off the agenda as cycles of planning succeeded one another. Reference Sorsa and VaaraSorsa and Vaara (2020) followed six different issues over three different cycles of planning, showing how proponents of challengers of change negotiated the meaning of these issues over time, drawing on different rhetorical strategies ultimately resulting in compromise agreements.
These studies reveal how issues may carry over from one cycle of strategic planning to the next in different ways. Yet, they do not examine how the meaning of planning more broadly may be interpreted differently over time as organizations accumulate experience with these processes. It seems likely, for example, that any perception of the influence of strategic plans at one point will tend to stimulate interest in them later. When planning is perceived as influential, it becomes important for individuals to ensure that their perspectives are incorporated into future documents in ways that fit their needs. Thus, the preparation of strategic plans is likely to become imbued with political struggles to control their shape and destiny. In summary, there is clearly a need for further research on the evolution of strategic management tools over time within the same organizational context. Feedback loops from one episode of planning to another have been largely neglected. As these examples suggest, however, they may be significant and worthy of greater attention.
Conclusion
This chapter has attempted to open up the black box of strategic planning as a social practice in organizations by reviewing more recent literature that has examined in some depth the nature and form of planning texts, the practices associated with their production and consumption, and their dynamics over time. As can be seen, the different components of the practice have received uneven attention in the literature. We know more about how plans are produced and their textual form than how they are consumed, or how planning practices evolve over time.
In concluding, we draw attention to three final points that have important implications for future research. First, researchers need to stop considering strategic planning as a static and immutable practice the shape and form of which are uniform across all organizations. The benefits of undertaking more studies that relate planning with performance are limited at best, therefore, as they would necessarily be comparing apples and oranges. Moreover, since the practice is far from static over time, there is little hope that such studies could accumulate evidence. Studies from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s are probably dealing with entirely different beasts without really knowing exactly how they differ.
Second, as a social practice, strategic planning clearly has political implications that need to be understood and captured in future studies. Because what is written in plans expresses collective strategic intent, stakeholders in and around organizations will inevitably struggle to ensure that the expressed ‘collective intent’ fits with their own needs, interests and values. The very term ‘planning’ seems to imply rationality and systematic analysis; as we have seen throughout this chapter, however, it is imbued with politics, and this is important to understand and recognize in future research.
Third, we still know surprisingly little about the link between strategic planning and strategic action. It seems as if all extensive research relating planning to performance has skipped over this ‘detail’. With their interest in ‘what people actually do’, SAP scholars would seem well placed to begin filling this gap. There is a need for more study both of how strategic plans are consumed and of how strategic action emerges through, within or peripherally to the influence of strategic plans. For, as Cooren et al.’s chapter (Chapter 21) in this volume suggests, in some situations strategic plans may not be constructed in managerial interactions as objects of strategic concern, while, at the same time, clear objects of strategic concern reveal themselves in other interactions, escaping the discipline of planning.
This leads finally to a comment on methodology. It is perhaps not surprising to find that some types of practices (such as textual and production practices) have been more intensively studied and understood than others (such as consumption practices), because these are the practices that are most easily observed and tracked down. Texts are physically available to be examined. Production practices take place, at least in part, in well-defined locations, such as meetings, to which researchers may gain access. Even here, however, practice scholars need to be aware of the informal locations in which ‘meta-planning’ may be taking place – that is, where people strategize backstage about how they will intervene in the frontstage planning arena. As Reference Gioia and ChittipeddiGioia and Chittipeddi (1991) note, access to such locations can greatly enhance understanding and may be most feasible in ethnographic studies in which a member of the research team has some form of ‘insider’ status.
Consumption practices, on the other hand, are diffuse, imprecise and potentially sporadic and unpredictable. Tracking them down is more difficult through observational methods, as it is hard to arrange to be present in all the dispersed locations where incidents of consumption may actually take place. Studies that focus on consumption have therefore tended to rely more extensively on interviewing (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley 2014; Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski and Shaw 2012), with the result that the fine-grained subtleties of these practices may be easier to miss. Nevertheless, there may be ways to enhance the study of these practices by targeting specific issues within strategic plans that are most likely to sustain organizational attention – for example, those that are disruptive or controversial. Following over time the fate of specific strategic issues expressed in terms of different levels or priority or of ambiguity might be valuable to better understand how the framing of collective intent influences the ways in which texts are mobilized in practice. Another way to track consumption might be to identify specific locations or processes in which strategic plans might more commonly be brought up and discussed. This approach was adopted in Reference Sorsa, Pälli and MikkolaSorsa, Pälli and Mikkola’s (2014) interesting study of performance appraisal interviews.
The way in which strategic planning processes evolve over time through repeated cycles within the same organizational setting is also an under-studied issue that deserves greater attention. Examining such issues methodologically ideally requires a commitment to studying the same organization over long periods of time. While retrospective methods can help, real-time analysis is likely to generate much richer and stronger insights into these processes. Although this may appear intimidating, we note that it can be achieved successfully and without shutting down a scholar’s career! For example, Robert Burgelman’s ongoing engagement with Intel since the 1980s has given rise to multiple successive contributions in the area of strategic management, with each study building on the findings of the previous ones (Reference BurgelmanBurgelman 1991; Reference Burgelman1994; Reference Burgelman2002; Reference Burgelman and GroveBurgelman and Grove 2007). SAP scholars are known, among other things, for their many insightful analyses of micro-level interactions and fleeting moments. These analyses are valuable and should be pursued, but there is also potential to contribute at the other end of the temporal spectrum by adopting a longer-term perspective on strategic planning as a social practice.
