In this paper we contribute to knowledge of power and politics in international business by developing the understanding of the role of discourse and sensemaking in the subsidiary-headquarters relationship. Based on an ethnographic action research study in a British subsidiary of an American multinational corporation, we conduct an ethnomethodologically informed discourse analysis of the accounts, stories and metaphors through which power and politics in the subsidiary-headquarters relationship were created as social facts. We then broaden the analytic frame to trace longitudinally how these facts led the subsidiary managers to hide, dilute or restrict their 'local sense' from the headquarters, including their knowledge of the local market and their preferred strategic direction for the firm: a process we term sense-censoring. We reveal how the subsidiary used power and politics as reasoning procedures to decide against pursuing a preferred course of action, despite a strongly held belief to the contrary, due to anticipated reactions or counter-actions, thereby transforming potential strategic action into inaction. Sense-censoring is significant for international business management, we propose, because it impacts upon knowledge flows, innovation diffusion and organizational learning. We conclude by outlining the implications of systems of sense-censoring and strategic inaction for the management of global-local relations in multinational corporations.

Categorization is known to play an important role in organizations because categories ‘frame’ situations in particular ways, informing managerial sensemaking and enabling managerial intervention. In this article, we advance existing work by examining the role of categorization practices in discursive leadership during periods of strategic change. Drawing on data from an ethnographic action research study of a strategic change initiative in a multi-national corporation, we use membership categorization analysis to develop a framework for studying ‘category predicates’ − defined as the stock of organizational knowledge and associated reasoning procedures concerning the kinds of activities, attributes, rights, responsibilities, expectations, and so on, that are ‘tied’ or ‘bound’ to organizational categories. Our analysis shows that discursive leadership enabled a radical shift in sensemaking about organizational structure categories through a process of ‘frame-breaking’ and ‘re-framing’. In so doing, the leader co-constructed a ‘definition of the situation’ that built a compelling vision and concrete plan for strategic change. We go on to trace the organizational consequences and material outcomes of this shift in sensemaking for the company in question. We conclude by arguing that ‘category predication work’ comprises a key leadership competence and plays an important role in organizational and strategic change processes.

a b s t r a c tThe urgent need to combat climate change is now globally accepted. Collective action at a global level is the key ability to respond to the threat of climate change. No individual company alone has the necessary resources and capabilities to tackle the unprecedented challenge of climate change. Companies need to engage in give-and-take exchange relationships with other companies to address climate change. Research on how companies interact with each of their counterparts to respond to the challenge of climate change is limited. Existing research on climate raises questions about 1) how companies interact in response to climate change and 2) why companies fail to craft collective responses to climate change? In an attempt to shed light on these questions, we use the network approach as a theoretical perspective to account for the ever increasing connectivity and interdependence in the business landscape and theorize on the consequences these phenomena may have for the study. The study is based upon an empirical investigation of public-private networks in Germany. Findings indicate that companies fail to collectively respond to climate change due to the multiplicity of interests of actors involved in the network which is aggravated by 1) economic reasoning; 2) weak actor bonds; and 3) differing perceptions of the rules of the game. As such, the present study contributes to our understanding of collective responses to the ever evolving challenge of climate change.

This article contributes to our understanding of how organisations change the set of practices and practitioners involved in strategising, what we term the ‘strategy arrangement’. Drawing on insights from a qualitative study of the introduction and subsequent removal of a new strategy team, we develop a dramaturgical theory of the practices involved in changing strategy arrangements. First, we conceptualise the relationship between the frontstage performances where impressions are generated and the backstage work that takes place to craft and control those impressions. Second, we distinguish between preventive practices designed to ‘stage the show’, where foresight is used to imagine the impressions of the audience and inform the design of the show, and corrective practices designed to ‘save the show’, where the desired impression has been discredited and repair is needed to restore the desired impression. Third and finally, we distinguish between the more innocuous backstage practice of rehearsing, the ‘behind the scenes’ work that involves taking up the roles of actor, playwright, director, audience and critic to craft the show, and the less innocuous practice of conspiring, where team members work ‘behind the backs’ of the audience to construct false impressions. In so doing, we seek to advance strategy-as-practice research by developing a dramaturgical theory of practice that captures the theatrical dynamics of strategic change.

No abstract

Researchers are kindly asked to use the official publication in references.

This paper addresses the methodological issue of how researchers gain access and build trust in order to conduct research in organizations. It focuses, in particular, on the role of interests (what actors want or what they stand to gain or lose) in the researchrelationship. The analysis shows how notions of interests, stake and motive were managed during an action research study in a UK subsidiary of a multinational corporation. The study uses an approach to discourse analysis inspired by the field of discursive psychology to identify four discursive devices: stake inoculation; stake confession; stake attribution; and stake construction. The paper contributes to the understanding of research methodology by identifying the importance of interest-talk in the process of doing management research.

No abstract