Search results

An increasingly large group of scholars in Europe have begun to take a practice lens to understanding problems of strategy making in organizations. Strategy-as-practice research is premised on the notion that all social life is constituted within practices, and that practices and practitioners are essential subjects of study. Applying this lens to strategy foregrounds the mundane, everyday work involved in doing strategy. In doing so, it expands our definition of the salient outcomes to be studied in strategic management and provides new perspectives on the mechanisms for producing such outcomes. As strategy-as-practice scholars, we have been puzzled about how much more slowly the ideas in this burgeoning field have traveled from their home in Europe to the United States than have other ideas in strategic management traveled from the United States to Europe. In this chapter, we contribute some thoughts about the development of the strategy-as-practice field and its travels in academia.

The study aims to investigate the concept of strategy-as-practice in construction management literature has been investigated. The focus is on the link between strategizing practices and project management.

An exploratory literature review is carried out based on fifteen journal articles on strategizing practices in the construction industry.

The analysis shows how strategy-as-practice questions and contradicts project management practices as depicted in the dominant deterministic perspective. Strategy-as-practice has a focus on reacting and adapting to a chaotic and changing environment, while project management is concerned with creating and maintaining a stable working environment. The findings point to the necessity of considering the organizational and institutional context of project management practices, and hence the values the strategy-as-practice lens, when considering new avenues for improving the industry.

As the study is based on an exploratory literature review of only 15 articles, generalizations should be made with caution. The identified literature is restricted by search words and choice of database.

The differences between strategizing and project management practices are very clear, and a focus on both may offer insights into how the construction industry could improve its productivity by developing more robust management practices.

The paper illustrates the benefit of applying a strategizing perspective, which hitherto has been under-investigated in construction management research.

The abundance of technological innovations has dramatically increased the prominence of digital transformation processes in many organizations and sectors. At the present time, digital transformation is first and foremost depicted in the literature as a strategy carefully elaborated and deployed by diligent executives. This stands in sharp contrast with contemporary organizational theory, and most especially the strategy-as-practice research stream, which has increasingly underlined the capability of middle managers to weigh upon strategizing processes. An empirical inquiry conducted in a major aeronautics company reveals that digital transformation can be largely driven by middle managers in charge of specific technological projects, who operate in the absence of a well-defined, overarching strategy. Drawing on the sociology of translation, the chapter identifies four tactics used by middle managers to ensure that their projects make it to the strategic agenda of the firm. Ultimately, the findings suggest that digital transformation processes cannot be solely understood as strategic endeavors, and can result from the addition of disjointed technological projects driven by middle managers instead.

In this chapter, the authors describe and explain how executive management enacts strategizing routines to strengthen their entrepreneurial agility, as a precondition to make new strategic moves possible. The authors contribute to the routine dynamics research program, by showing how the dynamics of routines, in a strategy context, shape strategic outcomes: the authors describe four strategizing routines – distancing, evaluating, experimenting, and re-assembling – as a particular promising focus for routine and strategy research. The authors discuss executive management’s enactment of such routines as part of their strategy work. The authors show how routine enactment makes entrepreneurial agility and new strategic moves possible. By exploring the dynamics of strategizing routines and their impact on strategic outcomes, the authors at the same time benefit from and contribute to the strategy-as-practice research program. Empirically, the authors study how the executive management of Hoechst AG successfully made unthinkable new strategic moves possible, discussable, and realizable in the context of the corporation’s strategic transformation between 1994 and 1996.

By adopting relational practice theory on a case study of a Finnish software company, a solution provider for the public healthcare sector, this study examines how the nexus of practices, and their socio-historical premises, enable and constrain intentional strategizing in an organization about to survive the ten-year Death Valley phase. The strategy literature adopting a practice lens has been focused on the rationality of human actions or implicated that all practices are shaped by the historical socio-cultural background of the organization. As a consequence, the practice-based strategy literature tends to overemphasize the rationality of human action or reduces human agency to an extent where the autonomy of actors becomes problematized. These practice-based strategy views circumscribe relational agency as inherent in practice theory treating human agents as acting within a nexus of practices but also consider them as being free to make choices. Findings suggest that even during intentional strategizing, managers are not fully autonomous in their choices as practices constrain possibilities and set boundaries for strategic activities. Prior commitments determine the possible strategic themes to pursue. Within the boundaries of these strategic themes, strategic activities emerge where the strategic activities are shaped by a nexus of practices within and around the organizational boundaries. Depending on the complexity of mutually dependent entertwined strategic activities, they can be perceived as being beyond management control, or considered strategically irrelevant, which influences the strategic direction in the face of uncertainty.

In this chapter, we explore the theory of Strategy-as-Practices (S-as-P) (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009; Satyro, Sacomano, Contador, Almeida, & Giannetti, 2017), by looking into praxis, practices and practitioners, for better understanding how sustainability can be seen as part of the competitive advantage achieved by an integrated business strategy.

The United Nations has formulated the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals. Within the tourism and hospitality industry, although governmental organizations continue to play an important role for these initiatives, increasing number of industrial stakeholders are contributing by having sustainable oriented goals integrated in their business strategy. Traditionally, companies incorporate Corporate Social Responsibility programmes into their business strategy (Frynas & Yamahaki, 2016). However, these corporate responsibility programmes have not always been integrated as part of their strategic development. Moreover, due to the absence of the clear strategic sustainable goals, these corporate responsible practices lead to unclear integration of stakeholders' roles and their impacts to the industry.

Several theoretical approaches are possible to analyses the behaviour of practitioners leads to sustainable practices (Satyro et al., 2017). With this chapter, we show how S-as-P theory can be used in analyzing the implementation of corporate responsibility within business strategies the hospitality industry.

This chapter develops a conceptual understanding on open strategy through a systematic literature review. With a sample of 148 publications, the authors examine the key debates in the field of open strategy and identify a number of limitations such as an excessive definitional focus and a lack of distinct empirical analysis of research in the field. The author’s analysis clarifies open strategy by classifying its main characteristics and harnessing the different aspects together in a comprehensive definition. In doing so, the authors examine how the underpinnings of open strategy can be conceptualized in order to provide a research agenda for how future empirical investigations into open strategy could progress our understanding of an evolving practice.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

All knowledge claims are also to some extent legitimacy claims. No theory can receive serious attention, let alone gain credence, unless it is also seen as legitimate. Philosophers of science have spent decades trying to frame criteria that determine the legitimacy of theories, only to agree to disagree on the matter. Sociologists of science, on the other hand, take a broader view, arguing that rather than seeking ex ante criteria of knowledge it is best to examine how researchers legitimate knowledge in practice.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.