Complex strategic integration at Nike: strategy process and strategy-as-practice combined

Author(s):  
Robert A. Burgelman
2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haridimos Tsoukas

Strategy-as-practice research has usefully built on earlier strategy process research by taking into account the social embeddedness of strategy making. While such an approach has generated valuable insights, it has curiously left unexplored the moral dimension of practice. In this article, we show how the potential of strategy-as-practice research may be more fully realized if the moral dimension of practice is conceptualized through virtue ethics (especially MacIntyre’s version). Specifically, we first reconceptualize, through virtue ethics, the three main concepts of strategy-as-practice—practice, praxis, and practitioners—underscoring the inherently moral constitution of actions undertaken in strategy-related work. Moreover, we suggest that strategic management is viewed as a particular kind of practice (what we call “competitive institutional practice”), charged with “values articulation work” and “balancing work.” While the former articulates a good purpose for the organization, the latter seeks to care for both excellence and success through balancing “capabilities development work” with “differentiation work.” Illustrations are provided to support this argument, and several suggestions for further research are offered.


2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1575-1586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Whittington

This Essai argues for the distinctive position of Strategy-as-Practice research outside the immediate family of Strategy Process. Strategy-as-Practice's fascination with the phenomenon of strategy itself takes it beyond traditional Process perspectives. Relying on the `sociological eye', Strategy-as-Practice treats strategy like any other practice in society, capable of being studied from many different angles. Under the four themes of praxis, practices, practitioners and the profession of strategy as an institutional field, the Essai demonstrates the potential range of research topics, performance notions and methodologies within Strategy-as-Practice. It concludes by proposing five implications of the sociological eye for the conduct of Strategy-as-Practice research, highlighting particularly social connections and relationships, embeddedness, irony, problematized notions of performance and a respect for continuity.


2020 ◽  
pp. 001872672092939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad MacKay ◽  
Robert Chia ◽  
Anup Karath Nair

Emergence of a firm’s strategy is of central concern to both Strategy Process (SP) and Strategy-as-Practice (SAP) scholars. While SP scholars view strategy emergence as a long-term macro conditioning process, SAP advocates concentrate on the episodic micro ‘doing’ of strategy actors in formal strategy planning settings. Neither perspective explains satisfactorily how process and practice relate in strategy emergence to produce tangible organizational outcomes. The conundrum of reconciling the macro/ micro distinction implied in process and practice stems from a shared Substantialist metaphysical commitment that attributes strategy emergence to substantive entities. In this article, we draw on Process metaphysics and the practice-turn in social philosophy and theory to propose a Strategy- in-Practices (SIP) perspective. SIP emphasizes how the multitude of coping actions taken at the ‘coal-face’ of an organization congeal inadvertently over time into an organizational modus operandi that provides the basis for strategizing. Strategy, therefore, inheres within socio-culturally propagated predispositions that provide the patterned consistency that makes the inadvertent emergence of a coherent strategy possible. By demonstrating how strategy is immanent in socio-culturally propagated practices, the SIP perspective overcomes the troublesome micro/ macro distinction implied in SP and SAP research. It also advances our understanding of how strategy emergence impacts organizational outcomes.


2021 ◽  
pp. 503-524
Author(s):  
Robert A. Burgelman ◽  
Steven W. Floyd ◽  
Tomi Laamanen ◽  
Saku Mantere ◽  
Eero Vaara ◽  
...  

Strategy process research has yielded a richer understanding of the emergence of strategies from throughout the organization and over extended periods of time; strategy-as-practice research has helped us understand the range of actors involved in strategy and the tools they draw on in their strategy work. The purpose of this chapter is to encourage research that combines insights from these two traditions. First, the chapter offers brief overviews of process and practice research. Then, the chapter reviews the most recent work from 2018 onward. Most of the text, however, goes to discussing future research that combines process and practice perspectives and that focuses on four themes: temporality and spatiality, actors and agency, cognition and emotionality, and language and meaning. These themes are woven together by two “red threads”—strategy digitalization and strategy inclusion—that we expect will have significant impact on strategy formation.


2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Grattan
Keyword(s):  

2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Lucian ◽  
Gabriela Lins Barbosa ◽  
José Milton de Sousa Filho ◽  
Felipe Augusto Pereira ◽  
Itiel Moraes da Silva

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hala Nassereddine ◽  
Dharmaraj Veeramani ◽  
Awad Hanna

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 263178772110296
Author(s):  
Paula Jarzabkowski ◽  
Mustafa Kavas ◽  
Elisabeth Krull

In this essay we revisit the radical agenda proposed by strategy-as-practice scholars to study strategy as it emerges within people’s practices. We show that, while much progress has been made, there is still a dominant focus on articulated strategies, which has implications for what is seen as strategic. We anchor our argument in the notion of consequentiality – a guiding yet, ironically, constraining principle of the strategy-as-practice agenda. Our paper proposes a deeper understanding of the notion of strategy as ‘consequential’ in terms of both what is important to a wider range of actors and also following the consequences of these actors’ practices through the patterns of action that they construct. In doing so, we offer a conceptual and an empirical approach to reinvigorating the strategy-as-practice agenda by inviting scholars to take a more active role in field sites, in deciding and explaining what practices are strategic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document