Inter‐organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta‐problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation

Abstract

Research Summary: When faced with complex strategic problems that exceed their individual sensemaking capacities, organizations often engage in inter-organizational collaboration. This enables them to pool the participants' different perspectives and to grasp the problem at hand more comprehensively. Drawing on data collected from two longitudinal case studies, we examine how those who participate in inter-organizational sensemaking processes are selected and how the particular selection of participants affects the dynamics of the sensemaking process in turn. In our analysis, we show how the selection of specific problem issues influences who joins or withdraws from the collaboration and we identify a mechanism that accounts for changes in the particular dynamics of the sensemaking process over time. Our findings help explain how the process of inter-organizational sensemaking can yield different outcomes. Managerial Summary: The ability to make sense of the business environment is central to strategic management. As the complexity of the environment increases and interpreting it becomes more difficult, organizations increasingly turn to inter-organizational collaboration, which allows them to pool their expertise in order to explore strategic issues. We examine how the participants in projects of joint exploration are selected and how the selection of participants affects the process of exploration in turn. More specifically, we describe how the aspects on which collaborating organizations choose to focus influence who joins and who withdraws from a collaboration. We also identify a mechanism that accounts for differences and changes in the dynamics of the sensemaking process over time. These changes affect how the collaborators come to understand their organization's business environment.

Strategizing and the Initiation of Interorganizational Collaboration through Prospective Resourcing

“…Yet, as our study shows, external actors can frame a strategic initiative in terms of their own resources, thereby guiding internal actors to "see" their needs in the light of a potential solution and maneuvering their resources to a central position in the emerging strategic configuration so that others rely on them. This influence of external actors extends beyond the provision of knowledge (as described by Regnér, 2003;Seidl & Werle, 2018) and is less transparent for the focal firm compared to examples of the involvement of external actors that is deliberately prestructured by the focal firm (Hautz, Seidl, & Whittington, 2017;Whittington et al, 2011). A managerial implication of this is that a focal firm must be alert to such influences on strategizing.…”

A Sensemaking Perspective on Open Strategy

“…It is not surprising, then, that inclusion works hand in hand with transparency when it is looked at from the perspective of sensemaking: what matters is not only bringing people from diverse professional and hierarchical positions, but also that those people can contribute information or expertise to the strategic conversation. This is why inclusion often consists in inviting partners who may participate into the project being carried out (Bryson et al, 2009;Seidl & Werle, 2018;Selsky & Parker, 2005), or at least finding ways of representing relevant concerns and experiences (Bowman, 2016;Corvellec & Risberg, 2007;Ritella & Ligorio, 2016;Teulier & Rouleau, 2013).…”

“…Indeed, combining together a diversity of people and of outlooks to reach an actionable meaning of what's going on is no small feat. It is a social process that is rooted in people's identities and may be politically sensitive as each set of actors interpret the information they share and that is shared with them in accordance with their respective interests, background, and expertise (Seidl & Werle, 2018). It can also challenge well-established understandings and potentially lead to important clashes (Chreim & Tafaghod, 2012).…”

“…Even though Open Strategy research is strongly concerned with issues related to sensemaking such as commitment (Hutter et al, 2017;Nketia, 2016) and impression management (Gegenhuber & Dobusch, 2017;Whittington et al, 2016), to name a few, it has until now paid scant attention to sensemaking and sensegiving (Seidl & Werle, 2018;Teulier & Rouleau, 2013). Yet, we can find research that uses the sensemaking lens in Open Strategy contexts without using the label as such, in particular in interorganizational collaboration.…”

“…Transparency, for its part, does not only concern a preexisting top management team sharing sensitive information downward (and in fact such a vertical hierarchy may not exist ahead of the sensemaking process). It also includes the way participants reveal the knowledge they hold about the issue or project at hand(Bryson et al, 2009;Corvellec & Risberg, 2007;Ritella & Ligorio, 2016;Seidl & Werle, 2018;Selsky & Parker, 2005;Teulier & Rouleau, 2013), as well as the knowledge about themselves…”