The recent turn of strategy research towards practice-based theorizing (Balogun et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2003, 2007; Whittington 1996, 2006) has increased interest in the everyday micro-activities of strategy practitioners. Strategy, it is argued, is better conceptualized as something people do rather than something that firms in their markets have. The interest in what managers actually do has a long tradition in the field of strategy process, starting with the seminal studies of Mintzberg (1973). Yet, in contrast to earlier research on organizational practices (Dalton 1959; Kotter 1982; Mintzberg, 1973), which emphasized the informal side of managerial work, the Strategy as Practice approach – whilst acknowledging the importance of emergence – calls for a reappreciation of the role of formal strategic practices. As Whittington (2003, p. 118) argued, formal practices deserve our particular attention for two reasons: not only are they pervasive phenomena in organizational life – a large part of organizational activity is in some way concerned with formal practices – but they also inflict considerable costs on the respective organizations. Responding to such calls, several researchers have looked into the organizational effects of various formal practices such as different administrative routines (Jarzabkowski 2003, 2005; Jarzabkowski and Wilson 2002) or strategy meetings (Jarzabkowski and Seidl 2008), discussing their role in organizational strategizing.
More recently, attention has begun to centre on the role of strategy workshops as a particular formal strategic practice.
The TRIAD forest management concept involves designating forest reserves and intensively managed areas within a landscape matrix managed by silvicultural systems derived from principles of ecological forestry (Seymour and Hunter 1999). By increasing timber yields per hectare in a strategically chosen zone, many fewer hectares are needed to produce the same forest-wide harvest, thus enhancing managers' ability to address other values such as biodiversity on the remaining areas (Sedjo and Botkin 1997). Introduced by Seymour and Hunter (1992), the concept can be traced to earlier work of Clawson (1974, 1977), Seymour and McCormack (1989), and Gladstone and Ledig (1990). Contemporary examples include grassland and aquatic ecosystems (Hunter and Calhoun 1996), an organizing framework for silvicultural research and management in the Great Lakes region (Palik et al. 2004), an illustration of “biodiversity exchanges” (Brown et al. 2006), and an analysis of public forest land in west Australia (Stoneman 2007). Indeed, many authors (e.g. Binkley 1997; Sahajananthan et al. 1998; Messier and Kneeshaw 1999; Taylor 1999) have explored the single-use zoning concept under various naming conventions.
The early 1990s was a tumultuous time in North American forestry, as influential ecologists began to question publicly the agricultural and “manage-everywhere” paradigms of traditional sustained yield forestry and outlined an alternative “New Forestry” (Franklin 1989; Gillis 1990), a concept that quickly morphed into ecosystem management as it was embraced by the USDA Forest Service (Salwasser 1994).
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.