Introduction
Play has been lauded as critical in all aspects of life (e.g., Reference FreudFreud 1922 [1920]; Reference HuizingaHuizinga 1955; Reference PiagetPiaget 2001; Reference WinnicottWinnicott 2001), including strategy (e.g., Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004; Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999). Yet, strategy scholars have been relatively slow to engage with the notion of play. This is being changed by the strategy-as-practice (SAP) community (Reference Jarzabkowski, Seidl and BalogunJarzabkowski, Seidl and Balogun 2022) with its focus on ‘the messy realities of doing strategy as a lived experience’ (Reference JarzabkowskiJarzabkowski 2005: 3), strategy as something organizational members do (Reference JarzabkowskiJarzabkowski 2005; Reference WhittingtonWhittington 2006), and an understanding of the consequentiality of the situated, socially accomplished activity (Reference Johnson, Langley, Melin and WhittingtonJohnson et al. 2007; Reference Seidl and WhittingtonSeidl and Whittington 2014; Reference Suddaby, Seidl and LêSuddaby, Seidl and Lê 2013). Such focus has generated fertile new research streams, studying play as strategic activity (see Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004; Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê 2017; Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999). Indeed, play has been offered as an avenue to strategic novelty and renewal (Reference Bürgi, Jacobs and RoosBürgi, Jacobs and Roos 2005; Reference MarchMarch 1987; Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999): ‘playful actions can be simulacra of mundane actions in which there is a transformation of meaning that enables a transformation of taken-for-granted boundaries of behavior’ (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004: 1328). Yet, the notion of play remains ill-defined, there is no integrated summary of the literature on play, and we have not yet delivered a meaningful research agenda. Hence, the remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. In the next section, we define play. We then draw on SAP work to outline the theoretical origins of play. Next, we summarize the state of the art of play in strategizing, drawing together empirical findings across the field. Finally, we conclude the chapter with some directions for future research that build from existing research to develop a robust research agenda.
Defining Play in Strategizing
The notion of play is often considered conceptually slippery. This is partially because varied conceptualizations of play exist (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009) and partially because many papers ill-define the construct (Reference Mainemelis and RonsonMainemelis and Ronson 2006). As a result, there is ongoing debate about the nature and definition of play. For the purpose of this chapter, which explicitly examines the role and potential of play in strategizing, we draw on Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs (2011: 236) to define play as a practice characterized by actors engaging ‘deliberately in a fun, intrinsically motivating activity as a means to achieve a serious, extrinsically motivated work objective’. We employ this definition because it acknowledges three key features of play. First, constructing play as a practice acknowledges that play is enacted by organizational actors in the moment, and consequential for organizational outcomes (Reference Schatzki, Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and von SavignySchatzki 2001). Simultaneously, it recognizes the multifaceted nature of play by entwining the cognitive, social, emotional and material dimensions of play previously specified in the literature (Reference Schatzki, Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and von SavignySchatzki 2001). Second, constructing play in this way acknowledges that play is deliberate. Drawing on the Platonian distinction (Reference Plato and BloomPlato 1991) of ‘frivolous play’ – play solely for amusement – and ‘serious play’ – play with a purpose – allows Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs (2011) to show serious intended outcomes behind the practice of play. At the same time, it does not predetermine the origins, processes or outcomes of play. While the literature often considers play as initiated or artificially prescribed in strategy settings, this conceptualization leaves open the possibility that both play and its outcomes may emerge naturally, going beyond any intent that was initially set (Reference Jacobs, Statler, Floyd, Roos, Jacobs and KellermanJacobs and Statler 2005; Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs 2011: 99): ‘allows the possible benefits of play to emerge at different levels of scale, that is, beyond the frame of the activity itself’. Finally, unlike others (e.g., Reference Ackroyd and ThompsonAckroyd and Thompson 1999), this definition casts play as an integral part of, rather than separate from, work.
On the Conceptual Origins of Play
There are many different conceptual approaches to play. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to offer a comprehensive review (for reviews on play in organizations more broadly, see Reference Mainemelis and RonsonMainemelis and Ronson 2006; Reference Petelczyc, Capezio, Wang, Restubog and AquinoPetelczyc et al. 2018), we briefly introduce the conceptual traditions that have been employed in understanding the role of play in strategizing. Our focus is therefore predominantly on those papers that have adopted a SAP perspective to play (e.g., Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004; Reference Bürgi and RoosBürgi and Roos 2003; Reference Bürgi, Jacobs and RoosBürgi, Jacobs and Roos 2005; Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê 2017; Reference Kwon, Clarke, Vaara, Mackay and WodakKwon et al. 2020; Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999; Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004; Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs 2011; Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009).
Play as Measured Foolishness (Reference March, March and OlsenMarch 1976; Reference March2006)
Conceptual Perspective.
One perspective that has been employed in the study of play is Reference March, March and OlsenMarch’s (1976) distinction between ‘technologies of reason’, i.e., innovation based on instrumental rationality, drawing on existing archives, from ‘technologies of foolishness’, i.e., innovation based on situated, contextual rationality which offer access to novel, unexplored options. Reference MarchMarch (2006: 23) categorizes play as a technology of foolishness, suggesting that only through foolishness can actors explore ‘the imaginative wildness of various forms of creativity’ and emerge ground-breaking, fundamental novelty. Suggesting that reason must be complemented with foolishness, March recommends that people ‘act before they think’ (Reference March, March and Olsen1976: 75) and allow for ‘small experiments with wild ideas’ (Reference March2006: 210). Additionally, he proposes playfulness as a way to explore possibilities via the deliberate but temporary relaxation and adaptation of rules (Reference March, March and OlsenMarch 1976). In this way, play offers one important way to suspend and escape the logic of reason and instrumental rationality so that actors can enter the space and mode of foolishness. Such play invites actors to experiment with tools and rules to produce generative outcomes:
Playfulness is a natural outgrowth of our standard view of reason. A strict insistence on purpose, consistency, and rationality limits our ability to find new purposes. Play relaxes that insistence to allow us to act ‘unintelligently’ or ‘irrationally’, or ‘foolishly’ to explore alternative ideas of possible purposes and alternative concepts of behavioral consistency. And it does this while maintaining our basic commitment to the necessity of intelligence (Reference March, March and OlsenMarch 1976: 77).
Illustration.
Reference Jacobs and StatlerJacobs and Statler (2005) take up this theoretical perspective in their work, casting play as an archetype of foolishness. Using the empirical illustration of a strategy workshop in a large European telecommunications firm, they show how a scenario planning process was successful precisely because it incorporated three key elements of a technology of foolishness (Reference March, March and OlsenMarch 1976). First, they relaxed rational imperatives by considering and playing out future events, as well as the myriad of potential consequences of these events. Concretely, they used models and metaphors of a group of ships to model various configurations of the firm. Second, the organizational actors allowed ambiguity and fluidity in action by building, discussing and reconfiguring a three-dimensional model of the organization. Using this model as a ‘transitional space’ and physically shifting elements of the model enabled actors to consider both strategy and organizational identity in new ways: While the brand was initially conceptualized as a light tower guiding the firm, through their engagement, actors began to realize that the brand was actually acting as an anchor, weighing down and threatening the very existence of the organization. The third and final element was permitting an emergent purpose – allowing unintentional action during play, such as shifting elements of the model, enabled actors to engage in discourse that was not simply ‘functionally rational’, thereby seeing the organization in new ways.
Play as Rule Adaptation (Reference GergenGergen 1992; Reference Gergen2009)
Conceptual Perspective.
Another perspective that has been employed to study play is Gergen’s relational view (Reference Gergen1992; Reference Gergen2009). Using the example of baseball, Reference GergenGergen (2009: 46) suggests that all activity is in constant motion and mutually defining, occurring in a ‘relational flow in which there is both continuous movement toward constraint, on the one hand, an openness to the evolution of meaning on the other’. He suggests that, while baseball players remain free to adapt their playing style, they must also conform to the rules of the game if they wish to win. It is this social interdependence that is critically important in organizations and allows, for instance, the holding in balance or working through contradiction in organizations, rather than simply seeking to resolve or remove the tension (see also Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004). As such, Reference GergenGergen (1992) sees play as incorporating both conformity to rules and novel application of those rules. He refers to this as ‘serious play’, suggesting the need to continuously superimpose playfulness and seriousness. Others share this view. For instance, Reference RortyRorty (1989) maintains that everything should simultaneously be serious and playful, while Reference BakhtinBakhtin (1984) sees the excesses of play as an important, even required, counterbalance to work that sustains and reinforces societal order. The novel application of rules facilitated by play thus enables rule conformity and creativity at the same time. Indeed, there is the potential for even minor rule changes to destabilize conditions and emerge creative, adaptive action (see also Reference Coveney and HighfieldCoveney and Highfield 1995; Reference MacIntosh and MacLeanMacIntosh and MacLean 1999).
Illustration.
Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. (2004: 1313) employ this perspective in their paper on problematic change in complex organizations. They suggest that in organizations where contradictory demands are present and, indeed required, paradox should not be resolved, but rather held open through ‘serious playfulness’. Serious playfulness incorporates four interrelated notions: expressing emotion, challenging rules, exploiting ambiguity and experimenting boundaries. In their action research project involving a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals and management researchers to address critical issues in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom, Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. (2004) used concepts from serious playfulness to experiment with various actions and interventions. This enabled the team to transform the paradox and see improved prospects for action, demonstrably changing clinical processes as a result. Critically, playful actions did not have to be vastly different to be consequential: ‘it is not necessarily the case that radically different actions are undertaken … rather playful actions can be simulacra of mundane actions in which there is a transformation of meaning that enables a transformation of taken-for-granted boundaries of behavior’ (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004: 1328). Everyday practice can be thus as consequential as grand gestures.
Play as Cultural Identity Process (Reference GeertzGeertz 1973)
Conceptual Perspective.
Also invoked in studies of play is Reference GeertzGeertz’s (1973) cultural framework, which differentiates ‘empirical play’ from ‘ritual play’. Empirical play comprises activities ‘through which specific cultures encounter aesthetic, moral and metaphysical inversions of what is generally understood to be their identity’ (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009: 92). This type of play is thus not mere misbehaviour but rather a process through with a cultural collective reimagines itself by reflecting on its identity and values. Conversely, ritual play generates cultural identity through liminal activities that ‘fall in the interstices of the social structure, 2) are on its margins, or 3) occupy its lowest rungs’ (Reference TurnerTurner 1969: 125). Reference GeertzGeertz (1973) suggests that culture constructs and reconstructs itself through play activities, as these allow the conjuring up of alternative images. These images are created through reflexive practices (empirical play) or by drawing attention to liminal aspects of the newly constructed image (ritual play). Play – through its engagement with alternative, make-believe realities – may thus emerge smaller cultural changes, but also lead to revolutionary new communities (Reference TurnerTurner 1969).
Illustration.
Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor (1999) draw on these notions in their paper on strategy-making as serious play. Using the example of the Strategic Imagination Lab at IMD, where they conduct research around the specific notion of LEGO Serious Play™ using experimental action-based research methods with strategy teams. In their paper, they show how the notion of play applies to the social dynamics of strategy-making, arguing that ‘[l]ike play strategy-making is a temporary and intentional period of make-believe’ (Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999: 352). Employing a very narrow form of serious play, Reference Roos and VictorRoss and Victor (1999) thus show that play triggers three types of imagination in strategy workshops: descriptive imagination (make sense of and describe world); creative imagination (discovery of what could be, what is missing); and challenging imagination (deconstructs knowledge and begins afresh). This, in turn, enables the strategic (re)imagining of knowledge, identity and meaning that lies at the heart of original strategy.
Play as Practice (Reference Schatzki, Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and von SavignySchatzki 2001)
Conceptual Perspective.
Adopting a sociological perspective, Reference Schatzki, Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and von SavignySchatzki (2001: 2) talks about social practice as ‘embodied, materially mediated activities that involve a sense of shared understanding that has explicit as well as tacit dimensions’. Developing the notions of bundles and nexus of practices, Reference Schatzki, Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and von SavignySchatzki (2001) pays mind to the importance of recurring and patterned activity in creating meaning. Such a practice perspective entails understanding characteristics of practice as entwined. Therefore, the cognitive, social, emotional and embodied dimensions of play previously identified in strategizing research are recognized as inseparable, interdependent facets (for a theoretical discussion of practice theory and its application to play, see Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs 2011). Simultaneously, practice theory acknowledges that meaning is always in flux. Hence, action is contingent on both the actor who engages in it and the context in which it is enacted simultaneously. This dynamic conceptualization of action accounts for ‘the adaptive potential associated with play’ (Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs 2011: 245; see also Reference Statler, Oliver, Hodgkinson and StarbuckStatler and Oliver 2008), allowing play to be constructed and interpreted in a multitude of different ways with varying consequentiality depending on the specific organizational context in which they are embedded.
Illustration.
The work on humour by Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê (2017) is embedded in such a practice perspective. Using a practice lens, they argue that small actions and interactions matter precisely because organizations are constituted in what people do (Reference NicoliniNicolini 2009; Reference SchatzkiSchatzki 2010). For instance, strategic goals are only reframed successfully when actors enact them in practice (Reference Balogun and JohnsonBalogun and Johnson 2004; Reference Balogun and Johnson2005; Reference RouleauRouleau 2005). Specifically, studying the micro-practice of humour as consequential in the restructuring of a large-scale telecommunications firm, Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê (2017) show that humour shapes both the construction of and response to goals that are persistent but contradictory. In particular, the playful practice of humour was used to draw out specific contradictions in work, thereby shaping interactive dynamics that ultimately entrenched or shifted existing responses. Hence, actors used a playful everyday practice, not to be frivolous or engage in simple tension-relief, but to consequentially alter the collective response of people in organizations to contradictory goals (see also Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004).
These conceptual approaches to play have allowed researchers to make headway in terms of understanding the role of play in strategizing. At the same time, they have directed focus of inquiry to specific areas and outcomes of strategizing. We briefly review these below.
On Play in Strategy
We now outline the state of the art of play in strategizing, explicitly focusing on those papers that have studied play from a SAP perspective (for an overview of reviewed work, see Table 41.1). This collected body of work has drawn out four interrelated consequences of using play that have been documented in strategizing: the emergence of strategic novelty; better understanding of organizational and environmental complexity; suspending norms and inviting experimentation; and skill development. While these outcomes are potential rather than guaranteed outcomes, they can be deeply consequential: ‘Although play activities by definition have no direct, productive outcomes, they do involve imagining alternative forms of organization, and these alternatives may provide significant benefits’ (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009: 99). We review these outcomes in turn, drawing on empirical examples to illuminate the importance of these outcomes to the strategy process. While we focus on the most reported outcomes of play in strategizing, we acknowledge that research has also revealed other strategy-relevant outcomes, including the development of shared meaning and deeper commitment (Reference Jacobs and StatlerJacobs and Statler 2006; Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999; Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004; Reference Statler, Jacobs and RoosStatler, Jacobs and Roos 2008) and effects on organizational identity (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009).
| Full Reference | Focus | Definition of Play | Theory of Play | Role of Play in Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roos, J. and Victor, B. (1999), ‘Toward a new model of strategy-making as serious play’, European Management Journal, 17/4: 348−55. | LEGO Serious Play™ | Play as strategic imagination via construction of knowledge, transformation of identity, sharing of meaning. | Eclectic drawing on anthropological and social psychological approaches (e.g., Reference GeertzGeertz 1973; Reference Sutton-SmithSutton-Smith 1997; Reference Vygotsky, Cole, Jolm-Steiner, Scribner and SoubermanVygotsky 1978). |
|
| Bürgi, P. T. and Roos, J. (2003), ‘Images of strategy’, European Management Journal, 21/1: 69−78. | LEGO Serious Play™ / metaphorical image | Play as multimodal, allowing for rich organizational images to be constructed, see, visualized, enriched and evaluated. | Metaphorical imagery (cf. Reference MorganMorgan 1986; also Reference BlackBlack 1962; Reference Black and Ortony1993; Reference Boyd and OrtonyBoyd 1993; Reference Lakoff and JohnsonLakoff and Johnson 1980; Reference Lakoff and OrtonyLakoff 1993; Reference OrtonyOrtony 1993). |
|
| Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. (2004), ‘Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations’, Human Relations, 57: 1313−32. | Serious playfulness (managerial action) | Playfulness as purposeful action driven by expressing emotion, experimenting with boundaries, challenging rules and exploiting ambiguity. | ‘Serious play’ (Reference GergenGergen 1992); play as enabling conformity to rules and creativity through novel application of rules. |
|
| Roos, J., Victor, B. and Statler, M. (2004), ‘Playing seriously with strategy’, Long Range Planning, 37: 549−68. | LEGO Serious Play™ |
| Eclectic drawing on sociological, psychological and philosophical approaches (e.g., Bourdieu, Piaget, Sutton-Smith). |
|
| Bürgi, P., Jacobs, C. and Roos, J. (2005), ‘From metaphor to practice in the crafting of strategy’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 78−94. | LEGO Serious Play™ / metaphors | Play as an adult learning tool with the purpose to uncover and create new insights using medium for visualizing, communicating and understanding business and managerial challenges. | Strategists as a hands-on craftsman (Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1987); recognizing link between hand and mind (physiological, psychological, social); manual activities affect processes of strategy-making. |
|
| Jacobs, C. and Statler, M. (2006), ‘Toward a technology of foolishness: developing scenarios through serious play’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 36/3: 77−92. | Serious play / scenario planning | Play as an archetype of foolishness (purpose is emergent and transitional; allows ambiguity and flexibility of action; accepts relaxation of formalities) – about creating meaning that offers adaptive potential. |
|
|
| Heracleous, L., and Jacobs, C. (2008), ‘Understanding organizations through embodied metaphors’, Organization Studies, 29/1: 45−78. | Serious play / embodied metaphors | Play/metaphor as way to perceive and understand reality by engaging with it in an embodied way. | Embodied realism / embodied metaphor perspective (Reference JohnsonJohnson 1987; Reference Lakoff and OrtonyLakoff 1993; Reference Lakoff and JohnsonLakoff and Johnson 1980; Reference Lakoff and Johnson1999). Spatial and orientational metaphors derived from our own embodied existence inform our reasoning and interpretation of reality. |
|
| Statler, M., Roos, J. and Victor, B. (2009), ‘Ain’t Misbehavin’: taking play seriously in organizations’, Journal of Change Management, 9/1: 87−107. | Varied / conceptual | Play as a mode of activity that involves imagining new forms of identity; allows building of emotional, social and cognitive skills, as well as establishing ethical principles; thereby emerging adaptive or transformative effects. | Eclectic drawing on anthropological, sociological, psychological and philosophical approaches (e.g., Reference GeertzGeertz 1973; Reference Kant and PluharKant 1950; Reference Mead and DeeganMead 1999; Reference Inhelder and PiagetInhelder and Piaget 1958; Reference Sutton-SmithSutton-Smith 1997; Reference TurnerTurner 1969; Reference Vygotsky, Cole, Jolm-Steiner, Scribner and SoubermanVygotsky 1978). Play as imaginative, ethical and autotelic. | Theorized role of play in strategy
|
| Statler, M., Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C. D. (2011), ‘Serious play as a practice of paradox’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47/2: 236−56. | Varied / conceptual | Play as a practice characterized by the paradox of intentionality: actors engage in a fun activity as a means to achieve a serious, work objective. | Core focus on Reference Schatzki, Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and von SavignySchatzki (2001) to reframe play as a practice. Practice as meaningful recurring and patterned action. Meaning is considered dynamic, always contingent on actors and context. | Theorized role of play in strategy
|
| Jarzabkowski, P. and Lê, J. K. (2017), ‘We have to do this and that? You must be joking: constructing and responding to paradox through humour’, Organization Studies, 38/3−4: 433−62. | Humour / playful micro-practices | Play/humour a consequential micro-practice as shaped by and shaping broader organizational dynamics: ‘humor is more than a coping device … it is a means through which the workers actually make sense of and perform their organizing role’ (Reference LynchLynch 2010: 154). | Practice theory approach (Reference NicoliniNicolini 2009; Reference SchatzkiSchatzki 2010): organization is a culmination of what people do. Everyday actions and interactions, including playful ones, (re)construct organizations. |
|
| Kwon, W., Clarke, I., Vaara, E., Mackay, R. and Wodak, R. (2020), ‘Using verbal irony to move on with controversial issues’, Organization Science, 31/4: 797−1051. | Irony | Play/irony as a device that operates by superimposing what is said and what is meant in order to provide relief, assert superiority and expose incongruity. | Discursive incongruity theory (Reference SwabeySwabey 1962; Reference MeyerMeyer 2000; Reference AttardoAttardo 2010). Irony as suspending social norms and thereby enabling extreme alternative view(s). |
|
Play as a Source of Strategic Novelty
Outcome.
One of the most observed outcomes of employing play in strategizing is its ability to emerge innovative strategy (Reference Jacobs and HeracleousJacobs and Heracleous 2005; Reference Jacobs, Statler, Floyd, Roos, Jacobs and KellermanJacobs and Statler 2005; Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004; Reference Statler, Oliver, Hodgkinson and StarbuckStatler and Oliver 2008). Specifically, the new ways of engaging with strategy brought about by play may stimulate new constructions of the organizational and strategic environments (Reference Oliver and RoosOliver and Roos 2000), as well as different types of strategic thinking (Reference Heracleous and JacobsHeracleous and Jacobs 2008), which lead to imaginative strategies with original and different content (Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999). This can produce tangible innovation outputs, such as innovative and compelling product designs (Reference SchrageSchrage 2000) and new clinical practice (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004).
Illustration.
In their paper on embodied metaphors, for instance, Reference Heracleous and JacobsHeracleous and Jacobs (2008) showed how a group of strategic actors from a large telecommunications company used construction toy materials to support their strategy process in a series of strategy workshops. By constructing physical entities of the organization and its various facets, and altering these entities and facets physically over time, managers were able to find more innovative ways to engage with strategic issues. For instance, using the embodied metaphor of ‘poorly connected machines’, managers could signal a general lack of coherence, as well as a series of specific disconnects within the business. This could be used as a prompt to come up with solutions for this non-coherence and these disconnects, remodelling the embodied metaphor in ways that could address these strategic issues, thereby facilitating new ways of thinking and acting. The authors concluded that it is precisely because organizations can emerge alternatives through play that they are able to offer a better range of strategic alternatives (see also Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009).
Play as a Way of Garnering More Complex Understanding
Outcome.
Another important outcome of play in strategizing is its ability to emerge more complete and complex understanding of the organization and its strategic environment. Acting like a sort of cognitive extension device (Reference ClarkClark 2008; Reference Stigliani and RavasiStigliani and Ravasi 2012), play – particularly those modes of play that involved material practices – enables actors to see strategic spaces in new ways. Play enables strategic actors to simultaneously recognize multiple meaning and realities, including contradictory, paradoxical or absurd realities (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004; also Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004), while also allowing for unexpected (dis)connects to be uncovered (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004). Specifically, this includes offering new challenging descriptions of business environment and strategic challenges (Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004).
Illustration.
Reference Bürgi and RoosBürgi and Roos (2003) in their paper on images of strategy, show how play enables strategists to move beyond the simplistic, multimodal abstractions often produced in strategy. By engaging with the multimodal physical representations they created in LEGO Serious Play™ workshops, workshop participants not only self-constructed their strategic environment but also had a tool to facilitate narration surrounding this environment. Working through various constructions and scenarios enabled a fuller representation to emerge, that captured greater complexity, but also helped the participants to make sense of and respond to this complexity. As one participant reflected, ‘[i]t was helpful to see many aspects of the strategy in a different light … We could get a real cumulative understanding’ (Reference Bürgi and RoosBürgi and Roos 2003: 75). This deep understanding and newly found ability to communicate various concerns and levels of strategy led to a greater understanding of the strategy and the environment in which it was embedded.
Play as a Way to Suspend Norms and Invite Experimentation
Outcome.
Additionally, by invoking a different mode of engagement, play acts to suspend regular organizational rules, thereby enabling strategy actors to challenge behavioural norms (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004; Reference Jacobs and StatlerJacobs and Statler 2006). The suspension of rules and challenge of norms in turn enables strategic ‘experimentation’ (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004) or a mode of ‘foolishness’ (Reference Jacobs and StatlerJacobs and Statler 2006), which offers complex adaptive potential (Reference Oliver and RoosOliver and Roos 2000; also, Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004). Specifically, play may enable an organization to adapt its purpose and respond to a changing strategic environment, shifting not just strategy process, but also shaping strategy content through its impact on overall strategic intent (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009).
Illustration.
Reference Bürgi, Jacobs and RoosBürgi, Jacobs and Roos (2005) offer an illustrative case of a group of managers engaging in a strategy process, where they actively experimented with hands-on constructions of organization and environment. Using these experimental techniques, several smaller meetings were held to engage with the company’s strategy. By emerging themselves in this non-traditional strategizing environment, strategic actors were not just able to suspend formal organizations rules – like hierarchies of power and expertise – but could also transcend accepted understanding of strategy. Using physical constructions and manipulating them in an interactive process allowed them to ‘play around’ and ‘experiment’ with strategies in new ways. Participants reported that this approach was not just mentally stimulating but also created better, more potent strategy.
Play as Skill Development
Outcome.
In addition to the broader strategic benefits, research on strategizing has also reported concrete outcomes for strategists themselves. In particular, employing play in strategy has been shown to develop strategy skills, in particular complex cognitive capacity (Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004) and strategic thinking (Reference Heracleous and JacobsHeracleous and Jacobs 2008), as well as facilitating better decision-making via more ethical and more comprehensive consideration of stakeholder claims (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009; see also Reference Statler, Oliver, Hodgkinson and StarbuckStatler and Oliver 2008). Such skills are fostered through the innovative playful mode of engagement, but also through reliance on ‘hands-on’ craftsmanship (Reference Bürgi, Jacobs and RoosBürgi, Jacobs and Roos 2005).
Illustration.
Drawing on broader studies of games and play, Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor (2009) powerfully demonstrate how playful imagination allows us not only to recognize principles of ethics but also encourages us to act according to them (see also Reference Holliday, Statler and FlandersHolliday, Statler and Flanders 2007). This is partially enabled through iterative, ongoing engagement and partially by ongoing imaginative activity: ‘At its simplest, the constitutive rule of play is “keep imagining”, but even this basic restriction mediates the relationship between individuals, requiring each of them to respect themselves and each other in the interest of sustaining the imaginative activity’ (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009: 103). Exposing strategists to these novel modes of engaging over strategy, therefore, fosters skill development across a number of strategically important areas, not least of all strategic decision-making.
These empirical findings suggest that play can be a powerful tool not just in the strategy process, but also meaningfully shape strategy content (Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004). This provides an important first inroad into understanding the role and consequentiality of play in strategizing. However, it also leaves a series of important questions unanswered, which we integrated into the agenda for future research we outline below.
Agenda for Future Research on Play in Strategizing
Having reviewed the definition of play, its diverse conceptual origins and its role in strategizing, we now set out a comprehensive agenda for future research around three key ambitions: enriching our conceptual repertoire of play; extending our empirical repertoire of play; and exploring play across all parts of the strategy process. We believe this focus would allow us to meaningfully extend research on play in strategizing.
Enrichening Our Conceptual Repertoire by Engaging with Greater Theoretical Variety
Play has rich conceptional origins with roots in diverse fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology and philosophy (Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs 2011). Yet, despite this richness, research on play in strategizing has engaged with only a few of these conceptual perspectives. Consequently, there is still much room to enrich our conceptual repertoire. In particular, future research might consider and employ a broader range of theoretical perspectives to illuminating strategizing phenomena. While many theoretical perspectives on play might powerfully inform research on strategizing, we believe less-employed cultural lenses hold particular promise. For instance, Reference GroysGroys’s (2014) notion of play as ‘profane space’ might offer interesting new insights. His cultural theory suggests that play offers access to domains and practices that go beyond structured, institutionalized practices, moving into what he refers to as the profane, yet-to-be-valued space. Reference GroysGroys (2014) suggests that each moment of play is an opportunity to adjust, change and extend the value set, leading to a ‘revaluation of values’ (Reference Groys2014: 63). Play thus gradually extends the boundary between the conventional (cultural archive; valued space) and the new (profane; yet-to-be-valued space), thereby allowing novelty to emerge. Such an approach might be interesting in the study of strategic values and visions.
Similarly, Reference SennettSennett’s (2008) notion of play as craftsmanship might offer potential to the strategizing community. He suggests that play involves an exploratory, experimental dialogue with tools as well as rules, and that such engagement will lead to the development and refinement of skills. Grounded in the tenet that even the most abstract skills ‘begin as bodily practices’ and that any technical knowledge and understanding develops through ‘the powers of imagination’ (Reference SennettSennett: 2008: 10), he posits that leaps of imagination and creativity are rooted in and generated from creative exploration (Reference SennettSennett 2008: 10). This could facilitate a range of strategic practices including strategizing prospective sensing, combining unrelated domains, acknowledging novelty, and recognizing the incompleteness of solutions. As such, a Sennettian perspective on play could offer an interesting lens to consider the skilful work of strategist (e.g., Reference Balogun, Best and LêBalogun, Best and Lê 2015; Reference Rouleau and BalogunRouleau and Balogun 2011), and to further develop the important role of strategy tools and material in uncovering ‘what might be that is not yet’ (see Reference MintzbergMintzberg 1987; also, Reference Dameron, Lê and LeBaronDameron, Lê and LeBaron 2015; Reference Jarzabkowski and KaplanJarzabkowski and Kaplan 2015).
Finally, scholars might consider Reference Mainemelis and RonsonMainemelis and Ronson’s (2006) distinction between ‘play as action’, ‘play as character’ and ‘play as orientation’. In particular, ‘play as orientation’ holds promise for the study of strategizing. It is defined ‘as a behavioral orientation consisting of five interdependent and circularly interrelated elements: a threshold experience; boundaries in time and space; uncertainty-freedom-constraint; a loose and flexible association between means and ends; and positive affect’ (Reference Mainemelis and RonsonMainemelis and Ronson 2006: 84). Better understanding these elements of play might also emerge improved understanding of how play produces strategizing outcomes at various parts of the strategy process.
Extending Our Empirical Repertoire by Considering More Diverse Modes of Play
As our review demonstrates, most studies of play in strategizing have taken a relatively specific definition of play, often focusing on very narrow notions of ‘serious play’ that involve using construction toys in strategy workshops (Reference Bürgi and RoosBürgi and Roos 2003; Reference Bürgi, Jacobs and RoosBürgi, Jacobs and Roos 2005; Reference Jacobs and StatlerJacobs and Statler 2006; Reference Roos and VictorRoos and Victor 1999; Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004). While some studies have adopted broader notions of ‘serious playfulness’ (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004) that extend to playful managerial action (Reference Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh and MacLeanBeech et al. 2004), including the use of metaphors (Reference Bürgi and RoosBürgi and Roos 2003; Reference Bürgi, Jacobs and RoosBürgi, Jacobs and Roos 2005; Reference Heracleous and JacobsHeracleous and Jacobs 2008), humour (Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê 2017) and irony (Reference Kwon, Clarke, Vaara, Mackay and WodakKwon et al. 2020), such work remains the exception. There is thus opportunity to extend our understanding of play in strategizing by studying additional modes of play.
For instance, researchers have suggested that the notion of play in strategizing should be extended to include imaginative exercises such as scenario planning (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009), budgeting (Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler 2004), organizational development techniques (Reference Statler, Heracleous and JacobsStatler, Heracleous and Jacobs 2011), product design exercises (Reference SchrageSchrage 2000) and leadership development (Reference Holliday, Statler and FlandersHolliday, Statler and Flanders 2007). Indeed, it has been theorized, but scarcely empirically investigated, that different modes of play might be connected to different strategizing processes and outcomes (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009). We therefore call for future research to closely examine such playful strategizing practices to better understand how they are consequential for strategy outcomes.
Similarly, we might additionally look closely at some of the composite elements of our everyday strategy work, including where we incorporate ‘games’ such as rock-paper-scissor, team-building exercises, dot voting, use of strategy journey diagrams, roleplaying, etc. to enhance or support strategy processes. Indeed, games and gaming are increasingly becoming incorporated into strategy work, though sometimes at the organization’s detriment (Reference Lehtonen, Vesa and HarviainenLehtonen, Vesa and Harviainen 2022). A better understanding of such techniques is thus critical. Furthermore, recent years have brought about a surge of new technologies that are set to transform the strategic landscape, and key strategic processes, most notably Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (e.g., Reference Felten, Raj and SeamansFelten, Raj and Seamans 2021; Reference Kiron and SchrageKiron and Schrage 2019; Reference Krakowski, Luger and RaischKrakowski, Luger and Raisch 2023; Reference Vesa and TienariVesa and Tienari 2022). As Reference Makadok, Burton and BarneyMakadok, Burton and Barney (2018: 1536) observe: ‘[a]nticipated future phenomena – such as new business models enabled by the internet of things, augmented reality, autonomous vehicles, and quantum computing – soon will be’. The opportunities and challenges of incorporating such technology – or materiality (see Reference Dameron, Lê and LeBaronDameron et al. 2015) – in strategy processes, and particularly their role in facilitating a playful mode of strategizing, however, need to be further investigated.
Such empirical insight would facilitate understanding of the impact of including such playful elements over less playful elements. Here, the clarity of instructions and rules is likely to be critical in terms of how effective the playful mode can be in facilitating creative strategizing processes. As Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler (2004: 561) note, ‘The “playful” mode of intentionality is not in and of itself unusual in organizations. Joking, consequence-free competition, and even rather elaborate gaming are in fact quite common in organizations.’ Our task is now to better understand these elements.
Exploring the Role of Play across All Parts of the Strategy Process
Most of the research on play and strategizing has focused on understanding the role of play in the variation of strategy. In particular, organizational actors have been tasked with using a playful mode of engagement to challenge and reconstruct strategy. For instance, Reference Roos, Victor and StatlerRoos, Victor and Statler (2004) show how strategy actors could shift their understanding of and engagement with existing strategy. This is a recurrent theme throughout the work on the role of play in strategizing (e.g., Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê 2017).
Yet, given that creativity and novelty are core outcomes of play activity, playfulness might be equally important in the ideation stage of strategy. Indeed, from an evolutionary view of strategy, strategic ideation is crucial in ensuring sufficient variation at the outset of any strategy formation (Reference Burgelman, Floyd, Laamanen, Mantere, Vaara and WhittingtonBurgelman et al. 2018; Reference Lovas and GhoshalLovas and Goshal 2000). Indeed, there is some suggestion that play may be connected to different parts of the strategizing process in different ways (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009). It might therefore also be powerfully employed in the ideation, selection and retention of strategic options.
Yet, in strategy-making, we tend to rely on more formal, rational processes that trap us in ‘cultural archives’ (Reference GroysGroys 2014) and almost necessarily exclude the ‘foolish’ (March 1979) and ‘profane’ (Reference GroysGroys 2014) that could enable new ways of seeing and imagining strategy. As organizations continue to be dominated by technologies of reason (purposeful, consistent, rational), Reference March, March and OlsenMarch (1976) reminds us, they risk myopically tapping only into archival knowledge and options when strategizing. In contrast, play as a necessary, complementary technology of foolishness holds promise to access options in the ‘wildness of imagination’ that transcend the limitations of received knowledge. Engaging in play in organizations, Reference Mainemelis and RonsonMainemelis and Ronson (2006) argue, provides ‘the condition for the possibility to discover novel, yet unnoticed or undervalued possibilities’.
We therefore invite scholars studying the role of play in strategizing to incorporate novel theoretical perspectives on play, extend the empirical repertoire of play, and study the use and consequentiality of play along the full spectrum of the strategy process. We believe this will allow us to comprehensively understand the links between play and strategizing.
A Hopeful Note of the Future of Play in Strategizing
As organizations are increasingly realizing the importance of creativity alongside reason, and opening up their processes to more creative modes of strategizing, we believe we will see not just better strategy in terms of traditional strategy outcomes, but also more comprehensive, ethical and human decision-making (Reference Statler, Roos and VictorStatler, Roos and Victor 2009; see also Reference Statler, Oliver, Hodgkinson and StarbuckStatler and Oliver 2008). We thus encourage organizations to engage with play in the process of strategy and allow themselves to be surprised by the potential of this approach. Similarly, we encourage researchers to continue understanding less conventional, but equally important, aspects of strategy (re)making and realization, and investigate how technology is changing the strategic landscape in both positive and negative ways (see Reference Felten, Raj and SeamansFelten, Raj and Seamans 2021; Reference Krakowski, Luger and RaischKrakowski, Luger and Raisch 2023; Reference Lehtonen, Vesa and HarviainenLehtonen, Vesa and Harviainen 2022; Reference Vesa and TienariVesa and Tienari 2022).
