Visuals in Open Strategy

doi:10.1017/9781108347921.013

Chapter 12 - Visuals in Open Strategy

from Part III - Technological Assemblages for Open Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2019

Sotirios Paroutis and

Edited by

Georg von Krogh and

David Seidl: Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Georg von Krogh: Affiliation:
Swiss Federal University (ETH), Zürich
Richard Whittington: Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

Book contents

Get access

Summary

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

Information

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Avgerinou, M.D., & Pettersson, R. (2016). Toward a cohesive theory of visual literacy, Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(2), 1–19.Google Scholar

Balogun, J., Bartunek, J.M., & Do, B. (2015). Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organization Science, 26, 960–979.Google Scholar

Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175–201.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baptista, J., Wilson, A.D., Galliers, R.D., & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 322–336.Google Scholar

Barry, A.M.S. (1997). Visual intelligence: Perception, image, and manipulation in visual communication. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 429–452.Google Scholar

Bechky, B.A. (2011). Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders. Organization Science, 22, 1157–1167.Google Scholar

Bell, E. (2012). Ways of seeing organisational death: A critical semiotic analysis of organisational memorialisation. Visual Studies, 27, 4–17.Google Scholar

Bell, E., & Davison, J. (2013). Visual management studies: Empirical and theoretical approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 167–184.Google Scholar

Berger, A. A. (1998). Seeing is believing: An introduction to visual communication. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar

Berinato, S. (2016). Visualizations that really work. Harvard Business Review, 94, 92–100.Google Scholar

Bingham, C.B., & Eisenhardt, K.M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1437–1464.Google Scholar

Bourgoin, A., & Muniesa, F. (2016). Building a rock-solid slide management consulting, PowerPoint, and the craft of signification. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 390–410.Google Scholar

Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R.E., & Svejenova, S. (2018). Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies. Organization Studies, special issue on the material and visual turn in organization theory: Objectifying and (re)acting to novel ideas, 39(5–6), 597–616.Google Scholar

Burgelman, R.A., Floyd, S., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S, Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2018). Special issue: Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 531–558.Google Scholar

Comi, A., & Whyte, J. (2018). Future making and visual artefacts: An ethnographic study of a design project. Organization Studies, 39(8), 1055–1083.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cummings, S., & Angwin, D. (2011). Stratography: The art of conceptualizing and communicating strategy. Business Horizons, 54(5), 435–446.Google Scholar

Dondis, D. A. (1973). A primer of visual literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.Google Scholar

Eppler, M.J., & Platts, K.W. (2009). Visual strategizing: The systematic use of visualization in the strategic-planning process. Long Range Planning, 42, 42–74.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as “epistemic objects.” Organization Studies, 30, 7–30.Google Scholar

Foss, N.J, Frederiksen, L., & Rullani, F. (2016). Problem-formulation and problem-solving in self-organized communities: How modes of communication shape project behaviors in the free open-source software community. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2589–2610.Google Scholar

Gaver, W. (1996). Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8, 111–129.Google Scholar

Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Giraudeau, M. (2008). The drafts of strategy: Opening up plans and their uses. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 291–308.Google Scholar

Gylfe, P., Franck, H., LeBaron, C., & Mantere, S. (2016). Video methods in strategy research: focusing on embodied cognition. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 133–148.Google Scholar

Halgin, D.S., Glynn, M.A., & Rockwell, D. (2018). Organizational actorhood and the management of paradox: A visual analysis. Organization Studies, special issue on the material and visual turn in organization theory: Objectifying and (re)acting to novel ideas, 39(5–6), 645–664.Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Hassard, J., Burns, D., Hyde, P., & Burns, J-P. (2018). A visual turn for organizational ethnography: Embodying the subject in video-based research. Organization Studies, 39(10), 1403–1424.Google Scholar

Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50, 298–309.Google Scholar

Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446–474.Google Scholar

Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of IT implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755–778.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. (2008). Crafting strategy: The role of embodied metaphors. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 309–325.Google Scholar

Hodgkinson, G.P., Bown, N.J., Maule, A.J., Glaister, K.W., & Pearman, A. D. (1999). Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 977–985.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRef Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441–456.Google Scholar

Jarratt, D., & Stiles, D. (2010). How are methodologies and tools framing managers’ strategizing practice in competitive strategy development? British Journal of Management, 21, 28–43.Google Scholar

Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 537–558.Google Scholar

Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29(11), 1391–1426.Google Scholar

Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22, 320–346.Google Scholar

Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R. (2002). Charting your company’s future. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 76–85.Google Scholar

Knight, E., Cutcher-Gerschenfeld, J., & Mittleman, B. (2015). The art of management complex collaborations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 16–19.Google Scholar

Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 403–432.Google Scholar

Knight, E., Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2018). The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on meaning making in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, Special issue: Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections, 39(3), 894–921.Google Scholar

Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies, 12(2), 251–273.Google Scholar

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

LeBaron, C., & Streeck, J. (1997). Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1–25.Google Scholar

Liu, F., & Maitlis, S. (2014). Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: A study of strategic conversations in top team meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 202–234.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mantere, S. (2013). What is organizational strategy? A language-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1408–1426.Google Scholar

Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341–358.Google Scholar

Meyer, E. (1997). Designing infographics: Theory, creative techniques & practical solutions. Indianapolis, IN: Hayden.Google Scholar

Meyer, R., Hollerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 489–555.Google Scholar

Mintzberg, H. (2000). The rise and fall of strategic planning. London: Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. (2014). From autonomous strategic behaviour to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1202–1229.Google Scholar

Moriarty, S.E. (1997). A conceptual map of visual communication. Journal of Visual Literacy, 17 (2), 9–24.Google Scholar

Moriarty, S.E., & Kenney, K. (1995). Visual communication: A taxonomy and bibliography. Journal of Visual Literacy, 15(2), 7–156.Google Scholar

Nöth, W. (2011). Visual semiotics: Key features and an application to picture ads. In Margolis, E. & Pauwels, L. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 298–316). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Ovans, A. (2014). What makes the best infographics so convincing. Harvard Business Review, communication, 22 April.Google Scholar

Paroutis, S., Franco, A., & Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Visual interactions with strategy tools: Producing strategic knowledge in workshops. British Journal of Management, 26, S48–S66.Google Scholar

Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2013). Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 935–956.Google Scholar

Ray, J.L., & Smith, A. D. (2012). Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations, and application in a field study. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 288–315.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 141–174.Google Scholar

Spee, P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1217–1245.Google Scholar

Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1232–1259.Google Scholar

Täuscher, K., & Abdelkafi, N. (2017). Visual tools for business model innovation: Recommendations from a cognitive perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(2), 160–174.Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132–153.Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582.Google Scholar

Vaara, E., Sorsa, V., & Pälli, P. (2010). On the force potential of strategy texts: A critical discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization. Organization, 17, 685–702.Google Scholar

van Leeuwen, T., Djonov, E., & O’Halloran, K.L. (2013). “David Byrne really does love PowerPoint”: Art as research on semiotics and semiotic technology. Social Semiotics, 23, 409–423.Google Scholar

Warren, S. (2008). Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: Towards a sensual methodology. Organization Studies, 19(4), 559–580.Google Scholar

Warren, S. (2009). Visual methods in organizational research. In Bryman, A. & Buchanan, D. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 566–582). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. In Malhotra, N. (Ed.), Review of marketing research, volume 4 (pp. 123–146). New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar

Wenzel, M., & Koch, J. (2018). Strategy as staged performance: A critical discursive perspective on keynote speeches as a genre of strategic communication. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 639–663.Google Scholar

Werle, F., & Seidl, D. (2015). The layered materiality of strategizing: Epistemic objects and the interplay between material artifacts in the exploration of strategic topics. British Journal of Management, 26, S67–S89.CrossRef Google Scholar

Whittington, R., Cailluet, C., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22, 531–544.Google Scholar

Whittington, R., Molloy, E., Mayer, M., & Smith, A. (2006). Practices of strategising/organising: Broadening strategy work and skills. Long Range Planning, 39(6), 615–629.Google Scholar

Whittington, R., Yakis-Douglas, B., & Ahn, K. (2016). Cheap talk? Strategy presentations as a form of chief executive officer impression management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(12), 2413–2424.Google Scholar

Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M., & Tidd, J. (2008). Visualizing knowledge in project-based work. Long Range Planning, 41, 74–92.Google Scholar

Zhao, S., & van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Understanding semiotic technology in university classrooms: A social semiotic approach to PowerPoint-assisted cultural studies lectures. Classroom Discourse, 5, 71–90.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

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