David Seidl

Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective

While the strategy-as-practice research agenda has gained considerable momentum over the past five years, many challenges still remain in developing it into a robust field of research. In this editorial, we define the study of strategy from a practice perspective and propose five main questions that the strategy-as-practice agenda seeks to address. We argue that a coherent approach to answering these questions may be facilitated using an overarching conceptual framework of praxis, practices and practitioners. This framework is used to explain the key challenges underlying the strategy-as-practice agenda and how they may be examined empirically. In discussing these challenges, we refer to the contributions made by existing empirical research and highlight under-explored areas that will provide fruitful avenues for future research. The editorial concludes by introducing the articles in the special issue.

The Role of Meetings in the Social Practice of Strategy

This article addresses the recent turn in strategy research to practice-based theorizing. Based on a data set of 51 meeting observations, the article examines how strategy meetings are involved in either stabilizing existing strategic orientations or proposing variations that cumulatively generate change in strategic orientations. Eleven significant structuring characteristics of strategy meetings are identified and examined with regard to their potential for stabilizing or destabilizing existing strategic orientations. Based on a taxonomy of meeting structures, we explain three typical evolutionary paths through which variations emerge, are maintained and developed, and are selected or de-selected. The findings make four main contributions. First, they contribute to the literature on strategy-as-practice by explaining how the practice of meetings is related to consequential strategic outcomes. Second, they contribute to the literature on organizational becoming by demonstrating the role of meetings in shaping stability and change. Third, they extend and elaborate the concept of meetings as strategic episodes. Fourth, they contribute to the literature on garbage can models of strategy-making.

Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World

The sustainability problems of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services increasingly challenges the legitimacy of corporations. Corporate legitimacy, however, is vital to the survival of corporations in competitive environments. The literature distinguishes three strategies that corporations commonly employ to address legitimacy problems: adapt to external expectations, try to manipulate the perception of their stakeholders or engage in a discourse with those who question their legitimacy. This paper develops a theoretical framework for the application of different legitimacy strategies and suggests that corporations facing sustainability problems have to be able to activate all three legitimacy strategies, despite their inherent incompatibilities.

The Dynamics of Standardization: Three Perspectives on Standards in Organization Studies

This paper suggests that when the phenomenon of standards and standardization is examined from the perspective of organization studies, three aspects stand out: the standardization of organizations, standardization by organizations and standardization as (a form of) organization. Following a comprehensive overview of existing research in these three areas, we argue that the dynamic aspects of standardization are under-represented in the scholarly discourse. Furthermore, we identify the main types of tension associated with standardization and the dynamics they generate in each of those three areas, and show that, while standards and standardization are typically associated with stability and sameness, they are essentially a dynamic phenomenon. The paper highlights the contributions of this special issue to the topic of standards as a dynamic phenomenon in organization studies and makes suggestions for future research.

Organizations as Distinction Generating and Processing Systems: Niklas Luhmann’s Contribution to Organization Studies

Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems has been widely influential in the German-speaking countries in the past few decades. However, despite its significance, particularly for organization studies, it is only very recently that Luhmann’s work has attracted attention on the international stage as well. This Special Issue is in response to that. In this introductory paper, we provide a systematic overview of Luhmann’s theory. Reading his work as a theory about distinction generating and processing systems, we especially highlight the following aspects: (i) Organizations are processes that come into being by permanently constructing and reconstructing themselves by means of using distinctions, which mark what is part of their realm and what not. (ii) Such an organizational process belongs to a social sphere sui generis possessing its own logic, which cannot be traced back to human actors or subjects. (iii) Organizations are a specific kind of social process characterized by a specific kind of distinction: decision, which makes up what is specifically organizational about organizations as social phenomena. We conclude by introducing the papers in this Special Issue.

General Strategy Concepts and the Ecology of Strategy Discourses: A Systemic-Discursive Perspective

Drawing on Wittgenstein, Lyotard and Luhmann the article develops a systemic-discursive perspective on the field of strategy and the respective role of general strategy concepts. The perspective suggests that the field of strategy should not be conceptualized as a unified field but rather as fragmented into a multitude of autonomous discourses. Owing to their autonomy, no transfer of strategy concepts across different discourses is possible. Instead, every single strategy discourse can merely construct its own discourse-specific concepts. Different discourses, however, draw on the same strategy labels, which leads to ‘productive misunderstandings’ (Teubner). On the basis of the particular perspective advanced here, the entire field of strategy is re-described as an ecology of strategy discourses.

That’s Relevant! Different Forms of Practical Relevance in Management Science

Recently there has been an intense debate amongst scholars on how to increase the practical relevance of research. Although the notion of ‘relevance’ is frequently mentioned in the literature, it is hardly ever defined and may have different, even contradictory, meanings in different contexts. This article presents a taxonomy of different forms of relevance, based on a textual analysis of the ‘relevance literature’ and of a set of 450 articles in three leading academic management journals that are renowned for their practical relevance. The main categories of this taxonomy are then discussed against the background of different aspects of the social dynamics of science in order to ascertain the forms of relevance that can justifiably be expected from management science.

Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice Research Agenda: Towards Taller and Flatter Ontologies

Taking perspectives from papers published previously in Organization Studies, we argue for progress in strategy-as-practice research through more effective linking of ‘local’ strategizing activity with ‘larger’ social phenomena. We introduce a range of theoretical approaches capable of incorporating larger-scale phenomena and countering what we term ‘micro-isolationism’, the tendency to explain local activities in their own terms. Organizing the theories according to how far they lean towards either tall or flat ontologies, we outline their respective strengths and weaknesses. Against this background, we develop three broad guidelines that can help protect against empirical micro-isolationism and thereby extend the scope of strategy-as-practice research.

The Practical Relevance of Management Research: Turning the Debate on Relevance into a Rigorous Scientific Research Program

AbstractHow and to what extent practitioners use the scientific results of management studies is of great concern to management scholars and has given rise to a considerable body of literature. In ...

The Three Schools of CCO Thinking: Interactive Dialogue and Systematic Comparison

The idea of the communicative constitution of organizations (CCO) has gained considerable attention in organizational communication studies. This rather heterogeneous theoretical endeavor is driven by three main schools of thought: the Montreal School of Organizational Communication, the Four-Flows Model (based on Giddens’s Structuration Theory), and Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems. In this article, we let proponents of all three schools directly speak to each other in form of an interactive dialogue that is structured around guiding questions addressing the epistemological, ontological, and methodological dimension of CCO as a theoretical paradigm. Based on this dialogue, we systematically compare the three schools of CCO thinking and identify common grounds as well as key differences.