Placing Strategy Discourse in Context: Sociomateriality, Sensemaking, and Power

Abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractThere has been increasing interest in the discursive aspects of strategy over the last two decades. In this editorial we review the existing literature, focusing on six major bodies of discursive scholarship: post-structural, critical discourse analysis, narrative, rhetoric, conversation analysis and metaphor. Our review reveals the significant contributions of research on strategy and discourse, but also the potential to advance research in this area by bringing together research on discursive practices and research on other practices we know to be important in strategy work. We explore the potential of discursive scholarship in integrating between significant theoretical domains (sensemaking, power and sociomateriality), and realms of analysis (institutional, organizational and the episodic), relevant to strategy scholarship. This allows us to place the papers published in the special issue Strategy as Discourse: Its Significance, Challenges and Future Directions among the body of knowledge accumulated thus far, and to suggest a way forward for future scholarship.

The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on meaning making in strategy

“…Prior studies of strategy as discourse have embraced the unfolding strategy process from a variety of perspectives, including a dialogical one (Barry & Elmes, 1997;Ford & Ford, 1995;Heracleous & Jacobs, 2008). Conversations gain momentum as strategy participants co-construct meaning by creating narratives that link different participants across time and space (Balogun et al, 2014). Our use of Peirce's semiotic triad to link strategies, visuals, and conversations is consistent with this dialogical view because it represents an open and dynamic process of meaning making.…”

“…Even though strategists engage primarily in visual activities when using these materials, strategy researchers who have investigated materiality have focused mainly on what actors say (Balogun, Jacobs, Jarzabkowski, Mantere, & Vaara, 2014), and paid relatively scant attention to what actors create, see, draw, or display (Meyer et al, 2013). This limited appreciation of visual activities (or visuality) in strategy research is also at odds with the prominent role visuals play in shaping strategy activities in firms, for example, with the growing use of presentations and data visualizations, to the extent that "visual communication is a must-have skill for all managers, because more and more often, it's the only way to make sense of the work they do" (Berinato, 2016, 94).…”

A Sociomaterial Perspective on Temporal Work: Practice Breakdowns during Strategic Upheaval

“…In doing so, we extend current views on the emergence of intentionality and practice development (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007;Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007). Second, our research contributes to S-as-P scholarship by responding to their call how strategy making can be understood from a socio-material point of view (Balogun et al, 2013). Finally, we contribute to the institutional entrepreneurship literature interested in human agency in relation to the transformation of fields (Dorado, 2005;Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011).…”

“…Because of this focus, scholars have argued that the S-as-P tends to follow an individualist social ontology by giving primacy to strategy actors, rather than the social practice itself (Chia, 2004;Chia & MacKay, 2007;Sandberg & Dall'Alba, 2009). Also Vaara and Whittington (2012) propose that the social practices of strategy making should be taken more seriously by looking at human agency as part of practice, emergence, and materiality (see also Balogun, Jacobs, Jarzabkowski, Mantere, & Vaara, 2013). Indeed, materiality matters and therefore should be included in organizational analysis as endorsed by scholars interested in the relationship between work, technology, and organization (Orlikowski, 2007;Orlikowski & Scott, 2009).…”

How practice breakdowns disclose existing structures and contribute to practice innovation

“…Because of this focus, scholars have argued that the Sas-P tends to follow an individualist social ontology by giving primacy to strategy actors, rather than the social practice itself (Chia, 2004;Chia & MacKay, 2007;Sandberg & Dall'Alba, 2009). Furthermore, Vaara and Whittington (2012) propose that the social practices of strategy making should be taken more seriously by considering human agency as part of practice, emergence, and materiality (see also Balogun, Jacobs, Jarzabkowski, Mantere, & Vaara, 2014). Materiality matters and therefore should be included in organizational analysis as proposed by scholars interested in the relationship between work, technology, and organization (Orlikowski, 2007;Orlikowski & Scott, 2008).…”