Strategy-as-Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, 2004 Workshop Report

Transcription

1 Strategy-as-Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, 2004 Workshop Report The strategy-as-practice workshop hosted by Imagination Lab Foundation in Lausanne began with three presentations in the plenary (available for download at under Our Workshops ). Richard Whittington introduced Anthony Giddens as an accomplished talker who could speak extemporaneously for bang on one hour without notes; as a man of action whose interest in a third way had figured prominently in the neo-liberal economic policies of the late 1990 s; and as a successful businessman whose consulting and other ventures had provided him with considerable wealth. Rooted in classic social theory (i.e., Marx, Weber, Durkheim), Giddens is the creator of structuration theory, which attempts to balance voluntarism and determinism between two poles. Focusing on the concept of strategic choice, Giddens claims that while we are constrained by our material circumstances, we are nevertheless able deliberately to make a difference. We are, following Giddens terminology, agents, and as such, we are competent, reflexive and knowledgeable. Our interactions, whether at a macro (i.e., society, class) or a micro (i.e., organizational, group) level, are structured, and these structures are embedded and re-embedded by human agency in its context. Whittington then raised the question: why take recourse to these big social theorists? Francois Collet then presented the work of Pierre Bourdieu. In this case, cognitive constraints function differently. We are structured by our world, and yet at the same time we construct our world. This position is clearly distinct from Herbert Simon s notion of rationality bounded by natural biological constraints. Instead the constraints are social, and we appear to follow rules that aren t reflexively discussed. For example, in boxing there is a tension between thinking and not thinking, where the fighter must be clever, but has no time or space for abstract reflection. In such cases, what is important is to have the right opinion or orthodoxy following Plato. This right opinion provides a sense of direction and illustrates the concept of habitus. Why does this habitus emerge? At a basic level because events happen in particular sequences. Again, with the example of the training of the boxer, repetitive motions guided by abbreviated advice allow the body to become clever, oriented in the ring and capable of fluid action and reaction. Why focus on this notion of practical reason? Because academics are too quick to define freedom in terms of rational self-reflection and awareness, which in turn gives rise to an imaginary anthropology of action. And also because, at the same time, academics are too quick to judge action on the basis of as-if correspondence to rules, giving rise Strategy as Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, (7)

2 similarly to a series of problems pertaining to the validity conditions of predictive models. More relevant are the conditions of the practice of the observer, and the social scientist is called upon to understanding the social trajectory of his/her own role. The objectivity of the observer is a false maxim, and instead we should pursue participant objectivation. In this sense, Bourdieu claims that it is important, difficult and necessary to examine the conditions for the activity both of the agents in a social milieu as well as the conditions for our observation of it. Of course, this cannot happen in only a day David Seidl introduced the work of Niklas Luhmann as more complex than either of the two preceding theories, requiring a reading of at least 200 pages before one is prepared to understand the meaning of the text. Luhmann is trying to blend Parsons (i.e., systems theory) with phenomenology. A first distinction is drawn between mind or psychic systems and social systems. Both of these systems are meaning-constitutive systems. They create worlds of meaning. They are the world that they create this is the tautology of autopoiesis. The mind system creates itself in and through thoughts, where the social system constitutes itself in and through communications. These systems are historical, in that their future is influenced by its past elements. Both systems are operatively closed, and only thoughts can lead to other thoughts, while only communications can lead to other communications. The two systems are linked through a structural coupling (which is not operative), through which the systems are adjusted or parallelized. To illustrate: between the mind system thought of a stone and the social system communication of stone, there is an irritation or perturbation. Between social systems then, 2 distinct social systems will always remain operatively closed with respect to each other, and this is the boundary through which distinct identities and individualities are differentiated, comprising different worlds of meaning. The two social systems can cause irritation in each other, but cannot directly influence their future path. The structure of operations within a given system is provided by expectations, to the extent that communications are themselves momentary events without duration, they remain subject to influence. A given communication can either confirm an existing expectation or generate a new expectation, and this is the duality of structure as it both limits and enables. For strategy-as-practice, Luhmann s theory provides a way to talk about structures independently of micro/macro levels of scale, as structures enable and constrain operation at all levels. It also emphasizes the importance of context for communications, whereas the same action may have different meaning as a communication in a different historical context. Finally it includes management as a part of the organizational system, where an individual manager can irritate a communication process; it can never be directly altered. Thus there is a sharp limit on intentionality, even as the organization constructs its own environment internally. Strategy as Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, (7)

3 Workshop participants then chose between four break-out groups in which to discuss the morning presentations. Three of the groups were hosted by the individual presenters, and one group other was provided as a default option. The Giddens group focused on what structuration theory might bring to strategy-as-practice research, how it compares to similar theories, and how it could be operationalized and used. The group agreed that the theory can be quite challenging, and that in fact Giddens proposes it more as a sensitizing framework than a detailed theory in itself. Structuration theory was compared with Weick s theory of enactment, which has a stronger focus on cognitive psychology yet largely ignores social context (e.g. class, poverty). In Weick s work, managers are often separated from their social structures and engage in self-contained events. While Giddens emphasizes context, he may do so at the risk of causing the voice of the agent to disappear and non-human agents such as technology are not considered at all. Structuration theory may indeed be better used in connection with other theories that are based on similar theoretical assumptions. In practical terms, using Giddens implies looking into historical and social contexts. Organizations are embedded in many other macro levels, which themselves change over time. Although it is difficult to link the micro to the macro in strategy as practice research, Giddens at least sensitizes us as to how the process works. The Bourdieu group conversation explored the potential contribution of his theory for an activity view on strategy. Essentially, the challenge to strategy scholars is to assess whether Bourdieu should be considered at all. In view of taking an economical reading strategy, it is not necessary to become an expert on Bourdieu but knowledgeable enough to appreciate his potential relevance. Rather than searching for differences between Bourdieu and Giddens, one should emphasize and carve out similarities. And yet, while Giddens discusses issues of embodiment in his approach at a very macro level, it seems that Bourdieu has outlined these issues in more detail. In turn, drawing on Bourdieu might enable us to have a more fine-grained apparatus to study the micro issues of social dynamics. At a very practical level, Oakes, Townley and Cooper's 1998 ASQ article was identified as a referent for applying Bourdieu to our field of study. In the Luhmann group, the conversation ranged from specific to the generic. Some people felt a need to question the very idea of autopoiesis, whether it was a theory, or an epistemology, what could possibly be Luhmann s intentions, and why we should be interested in the first place. However, most participants seem to be interested in how this literature helps us make sense of what is going on in organizations. Several issues surfaced as potentially giving us such insights. Using communication as unit of analysis was one of these. The very notion of seeing organizations as systems of Strategy as Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, (7)

4 communications, and that all communications can be seen as decisions, seemed to be intriguing. Luhmann s three-part definition of communication as utterance, information and further communication may be a guideline for studying the practice of communications. This is key since actions are created in communication, which cannot be observed unless we split it up in these three parts. The notion of irritation, or perturbation was also something that may help our research. How and why are perturbations received and rejected? How does the system change, and possible break down? How can the organization be designed to allow for further development, rather than break down? What is the relationship between perturbations and expectations? From this perspective might internationality become a consequence? A third discussion centered on boundaries and identity of organization. From the autopoiesis view boundaries are set in terms of communication, making the organization both operationally closed and interactively open. Cool, but what does that mean in practice? In a brief plenary after lunch, Claus Jacobs provided a synopsis of the preconference input regarding the object of study, method and motivation to study processes of strategizing (presentation available on As for strategy-as-practice's object of study, most participants referred to the actual activities, tools and techniques involved in strategizing. Equally relevantly, participants identified the need to study actors at different hierarchical levels in an organization in terms of their action, behavior, emotions and thoughts. Fewer participants highlighted the relevance of studying relationships and context factors of strategizing. Finally and from a slightly more critical angle some participants stressed the need to study strategizing as a discourse. In terms of methods to be employed, case study approaches (in-depth, empirically rich, single vs. comparative) were quasi-unanimously suggested. Such a methodological choice comes with the usual trade offs such as depth vs. breadth, issues of generalizability as well as time and resource constraints. Reflexive methodologies such as ethnographic, biographical or participatory modes of inquiry were suggested but require a high involvement of the researcher. Further methodological suggestions included ethnography, discourse analysis, simulations and surveys. Methods of data gathering included field notes, participant/non-participant observations and interviews among others. As for motives and motivations to study strategizing, it seems that three very broad orientations (or knowledge constitutive interests for that matter) seem to emerge. A first, normative-pragmatic motivation is concerned with providing guidance or giving advice to managers. Secondly, a hermeneutic orientation is interesting in the phenomenon of strategizing per se. Thirdly, a more critical-deconstructive angle aims at revealing the discursive configurations of strategic management discourse. Obviously, the overall orientation equally informs the object and method of study. Strategy as Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, (7)

5 Subsequent group discussions were organized around the three motivation/orientations to discuss methods and methodological considerations (Providing guidance, Understanding, Deconstructing). The "Providing guidance" group refocused on a different question: What is strategy-as-practice s object of study? Participants generally agreed on the relevance of Johnson, Melin and Whittington s definition from the introductory paper to the JMS special issue on Micro Strategy and Strategizing, namely processes and practices constituting the daily activities of organizational life and relating to strategic outcomes. However this description was thought to be a bit long, and the question was posed: If we were to name a journal after what we do, what would the journal s title be? Focusing only on micro processes would be too limiting, as it would not link up to the broader strategy issues, and more broadly the terms micro and macro were thought to be too vague. The terms practice, activity, and strategizing were discussed, as well as connections/overlaps with strategy process research, institution theory, and the resource-based view of the firm. Some candidate terms to replace strategy as practice included: strategy in the making and practices of strategy. The desire was expressed for the group to not become too tribal, but be inclusive, welcoming in skilled academics working in similar fields. However this need for inclusiveness needed to be weighed against the group s developing an identity based on some fairly specific contributions in an area in which group members have high perceived competence in order to be heard in the academic marketplace of ideas, and attract new members. The group broadly agreed that one factor distinguishing the strategy-as-practice group from other strategy researchers was its hesitation to focus on overall firm performance variables; instead, the group tends to be interested in smaller scale performance, for example, in specific events and sub-events. The conversation grouped around a hermeneutic orientation pointed out that, as an emerging recent area of interest, the field of studying the microactivities of strategizing should not rule out any methodological options at this early stage. Yet, the object of study drives the selection of method. For instance, in order to draw some valid conclusions at different levels of scale (e.g. such as individual, group, organization) researchers have to choose a corresponding method. In this respect, two prototypical instances for data gathering were discussed in terms of their potential to provide valid data. Firstly what conclusions can we draw from retrospective interviews with senior managers? Secondly, how "representative" a single intervention such as a management retreat might be? Both these relatively common phenomena can provide very rich and contextual data, yet their generalizability is obviously limited. On a related note, it was emphasized to be mindful of researcher involvement. Issues of resource commitments notwithstanding, a too close relationship with the researched system comes at the price of bias and reduced Strategy as Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, (7)

6 potential to generalize. Finally, as the object of study seems to be far from clear, a pluralism of methods needs to be encouraged. The Deconstructing group started off dealing with the unit of analysis question in an inductive way, by asking what do you study? One response was dance and movement, and this inspired considerable discussion among the group, with repeated illustration of movement with the fiddling of a pen. It was generally acknowledged that such micro-level movements, even ones without conscious, reflective intent, could hold meaning that is directly relevant to strategy. The question following this assertion is however the extent to which micro-level data can be significant to help explain macro-level phenomena. Other responses to the unit of analysis question included patterns, and stories, and in such cases the explanatory burden of proof requires identifying patterns or telling stories that are relevant or meaningful to the organization itself. In view of the diversity of possible things to study and ways to study them, the group began to respond to the plenary suggestion to consider the difference between practice and activity. In this regard, the group discussion focused on the need for the strategy-as-practice movement, on one hand, to develop a coherent set of axioms that would distinguish it clearly from the economic theory of the firm, while on the other hand, to preserve a pluralism of methods and avoid the risk of dogmatic orthodoxy. In the final plenary, strategic as well as pragmatic issues regarding next steps were explored. At the more strategic level, the "correct" programmatic label was subject to debate. Did we put people off by foregrounding "strategyas-practice" rather than other possible shortcuts to the topic e.g. activity based view on strategy, the practice of strategy? Logo and T-shirt design were suggested humorously but had a hint of seriousness about developing a clear identity and would obviously hinge on an agreed label. On a related note and in terms of the emergent community's identity, different views on whether a niche or a mainstream strategy should be pursued were suggested. In terms of focusing resources, EGOS, BAM and SMS are currently the core conference outlets for the community. Yet, Gerry agreed to test the water for establishing an AOM interest group. Paula suggested to support each mutually other at the AOM annual meeting by attending each other s presentations. Therefore, she will assemble a list of community members' presentations at this year s conference. Future meetings should focus on a specific method/ methodological angle in a very pragmatic way. Gerry agreed to identify and contact candidates in this respect. Finally, participants agreed to provide their pre-workshop input to Paula and David (via Claus) for archiving purposes. These activities notwithstanding, the next meeting is planned for October at the AIM premises in London organized by Gerry, Gerard and Patrick. Strategy as Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, (7)

7 Lausanne, May 12, 2004 Claus Jacobs, David Oliver, Matt Statler & Johan Roos Strategy as Practice Workshop Lausanne, May 7, (7)