Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T17:37:45.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - The Ongoing Challenge of Developing Cumulative Knowledge about Strategy as Practice

from Part I - Ontological and Epistemological Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2025

By
Ann Langley
Edited by
Damon Golsorkhi ,
Linda Rouleau ,
David Seidl  and
Eero Vaara
Damon Golsorkhi
Affiliation:
emlyon Business School
Linda Rouleau
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Eero Vaara
Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Ann Langley addresses a central question in strategy as practice research: How can we build a cumulative body of knowledge when strategy as practice interests tend to favour small intensive samples and fine-grained analysis, leading to corresponding limitations in terms of generalizability? Langley addresses this question from three different perspectives on the nature and purpose of science: (1) the ‘normal-science view’ is based on the ongoing search for more accurate, general and useful causal statements about the relationships between important phenomena; (2) rather than striving for a single truth, the ‘practice view’ calls for increasingly more insightful interpretations or representations of the social world; and (3) the ‘pragmatic view’ puts the emphasis on the instrumentality of knowledge. Accordingly, the researcher ought to uncover the knowledge of the practitioners, render it explicit and make it available to others. Langley shows how the different publications in the field of strategy as practice invariably fall into one of the three views of science. She concludes by discussing the advantages and disadvantages were strategy as practice to adhere to any one of these models of science.

Keywords

strategy as practicepractice approachcumulative knowledgemodels of science
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice , pp. 80 - 97
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abdallah, C. and Langley, A. (2014), ‘The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning’, Journal of Management Studies, 51/2: 235–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackermann, F. and Maytorena-Sanchez, E. (2023), ‘Increasing the effectiveness of project management: using causal mapping to integrate risk, uncertainty, and stakeholders’, in Winch, G. M., Brunet, M. and Cao, Dongping (eds), Research Handbook on Complex Project Organizing: 264–73. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. M. (1985), Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Astley, W. G. and Zammuto, R. F. (1992), ‘Organization science, managers, and language games’, Organization Science, 3/4: 443–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004), ‘Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking’, Academy of Management Journal, 47/4: 523–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J., Huff, A. S. and Johnson, P. (2003), ‘Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R. (2016), ‘60th anniversary essay: ruminations on how we became a mystery house and how we might get out’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61/1: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettis, R. A., Helfat, C. E. and Shaver, J. M. (2016), ‘The necessity, logic, and forms of replication’, Strategic Management Journal, 37/11: 2193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgoin, A. and Harvey, J.-F. (2018), ‘Professional image under threat: dealing with learning–credibility tension’, Human Relations, 71/12: 1611–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgoin, A., Bencherki, N. and Faraj, S. (2020), ‘“And who are you?”: a performative perspective on authority in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 63/4: 1134–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, C. (1995), ‘Strategy workshops and top-team commitment to strategic change’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10/8: 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromiley, P. and Rau, D. (2014), ‘Towards a practice-based view of strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, 35/8: 1249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, J. M. (2022), ‘The future of strategizing by public and nonprofit organizations’, Political Science & Politics, 54/1: 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürgi, P. T., Jacobs, C. D. and Roos, J. (2005), ‘From metaphor to practice in the crafting of strategy’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 14/1: 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calori, R. (2002), ‘Real time/real space research: connecting action and reflection in organization studies’, Organization Studies, 23/6: 877–83.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2002), ‘A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development’, Organization Science, 13/4: 442–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2004), ‘Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries’, Organization Science, 15/5: 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlile, P. R. and Christensen, C. M. (2005), The Cycles of Theory Building in Management Research, Working Paper no. 05–057. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Carlson, K. D. and Hatfield, D. E. (2004), ‘Strategic management research and the cumulative knowledge perspective’, in Ketchen, D. J., and Bergh, D. D. (eds), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, vol. I: 273–301. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A. and Sanders, W. G. (2004), ‘Upper echelons research revisited: antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition’, Journal of Management, 30/6: 749–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, B., Levy, L. and Richmond, D. (2008), ‘Leadership as practice: challenging the competency paradigm’, Leadership, 4/4: 363–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Certo, S. T., Lester, R. H., Dalton, C. M. and Dalton, D. R. (2006), ‘Top management teams, strategy and financial performance: a meta-analytic examination’, Journal of Management Studies, 43/4: 813–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, R. and MacKay, B. (2007), ‘Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective: discovering strategy in the logic of practice’, Human Relations, 60/1: 217–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. (2001), ‘Why sociology doesn’t make progress like the natural sciences’, in Cole, S. (ed.), What’s Wrong with Sociology?: 37–60. Edison, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Cook, S. D. and Brown, J. S. (1999), ‘Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing’, Organization Science, 10/4: 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. and Fox, S. (1990), ‘The “texture” of organizing’, Journal of Management Studies, 27/6: 575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. F. (2010), ‘Do theories of organizations progress?’, Organizational Research Methods, 13/4: 690–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. A. (2001), ‘What’s wrong with sociology?’, in Cole, S. (ed.), What’s Wrong with Sociology?: 99–120. Edison, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Di Stefano, G. and Gutierrez, C. (2019), ‘Under a magnifying glass: on the use of experiments in strategy research’, Strategic Organization, 17/4: 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L. and Müller-Seitz, G. (2019), ‘Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process’, Organization Studies, 40/3: 343–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, R., Grant, R. M. and Madsen, T. L. (2017), ‘The expanding domain of strategic management research and the quest for integration’, Strategic Management Journal, 38/1: 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998), Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (2008), ‘Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: a supplement to rationalist and interpretive accounts’, Organization Studies, 29/2: 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011), ‘Theorizing practice and practicing theory’, Organization Science, 22/5: 1240–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003), ‘Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48/1: 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D. C. (1996), Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations. St. Paul, MN: West Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C. and Cannella, A. A. (2009), Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
George, B., Walker, R. M. and Monster, J. (2019), ‘Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A meta‐analysis’, Public Administration Review, 79/6: 810–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherardi, S. (2006), Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (2004), ‘The disintegration of strategic management: it’s time to consolidate our gains’, Strategic Organization, 2/1: 91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (2007), ‘The field of management’s devotion to theory: too much of a good thing?’, Academy of Management Journal, 50/6: 1346–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984), ‘Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers’, Academy of Management Review, 9/2: 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2017), ‘Open strategy: dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics’, Long Range Planning, 50/3: 298–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, M. P., Hodgkinson, G. P., Whittington, R. and Johnson, G. (2015), ‘Off to plan or out to lunch? Relationships between design characteristics and outcomes of strategy workshops’, British Journal of Management, 26/3: 507–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, J. and Seidl, D. (2003), ‘The structure and significance of strategic episodes: social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C. D. (2008), ‘Understanding organizations through embodied metaphors’, Organization Studies, 29/1: 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herepath, A. (2014), ‘In the loop: a realist approach to structure and agency in the practice of strategy’, Organization Studies, 35/6: 857–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. and Wright, G. (2002), ‘Confronting strategic inertia in a top management team: learning from failure’, Organization Studies, 23/6: 949–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. and Wright, G. (2006), ‘Neither completing the practice turn, nor enriching the process tradition: secondary misinterpretations of a case analysis reconsidered’, Organization Studies, 27/12: 1895–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., Whittington, R., Johnson, G. and Schwarz, M. (2006), ‘The role of strategy workshops in strategy development processes: formality, communication, co-ordination and inclusion’, Long Range Planning, 39/5: 479–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homberg, F. and Bui, H. T. (2013), ‘Top management team diversity: a systematic review’, Group and Organization Management, 38/4: 455–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. D., Oliver, D. and Heracleous, L. (2013), ‘Diagnosing organizational identity beliefs by eliciting complex, multimodal metaphors’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49/4: 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004), ‘Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use’, Organization Studies, 25/4: 529–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2008), ‘Shaping strategy as a structuration process’, Academy of Management Journal, 51/4: 621–50.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. and Bednarek, R. (2018), ‘Toward a social practice theory of relational competing’, Strategic Management Journal, 39/3: 794–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. and Kaplan, S. (2015), ‘Strategy tools-in-use: a framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice’, Strategic Management Journal, 36/4: 537–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. and Seidl, D. (2008), ‘The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy’, Organization Studies, 29/11: 1391–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007), ‘Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective’, Human Relations, 60/1: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R. and Spee, P. (2015), Making a Market for Acts of God: The Practice of Risk-Trading in the Global Reinsurance Industry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Kavas, M. and Krull, E. (2021), ‘It’s practice. But is it strategy? Reinvigorating strategy-as-practice by rethinking consequentiality’, Organization Theory, 2/3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Seidl, D. and Balogun, J. (2022), ‘From germination to propagation: two decades of Strategy-as-Practice research and potential future directions’, Human Relations, 75/8: 1533–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K. and Cacciatori, E. (2019), ‘Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge’, Strategic Organization, 17/1:120–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K. and Cacciatori, E. (2022), ‘Enabling rapid financial response to disasters: knotting and reknotting multiple paradoxes in interorganizational systems’, Academy of Management Journal, 65/5: 1477–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2007), Strategy as Practice: Research Directions and Resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Prashantham, S., Floyd, S. and Bourque, N. (2010), ‘The ritualization of strategy workshops’, Organization Studies, 31/12: 1589–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2011), ‘Strategy and PowerPoint: an inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making’, Organization Science, 22/2: 320–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2013), ‘Temporal work in strategy making’, Organization Science, 24/4: 965–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilduff, M. (2007), ‘Celebrating thirty years of theory publishing in AMR: award-winning articles from the first two decades revisited’, Academy of Management Review, 32/2: 332–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, E., Paroutis, S. and Heracleous, L. (2018), ‘The power of PowerPoint: a visual perspective on meaning making in strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, 39/3: 894–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E. and Rabetino, R. (2022), ‘Making connections: harnessing the diversity of strategy‐as‐practice research’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 24/2: 210–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornberger, M. and Clegg, S. (2011), ‘Strategy as performative practice: the case of Sydney 2030’, Strategic Organization, 9/2: 136–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kouamé, S. and Langley, A. (2018), ‘Relating microprocesses to macro‐outcomes in qualitative strategy process and practice research’, 39/3: 559–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laine, P.-M. and Vaara, E. (2007), ‘Struggling over subjectivity: a discursive analysis of strategic development in an engineering group’, Human Relations, 60/1: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A. (2007), ‘Process thinking in strategic organization’, Strategic Organization, 5/3: 271–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. and Phillips, N. (2019), Constructing Organizational Life: How Social-Symbolic Work Shapes Selves, Organizations, and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorino, P. (2018), Pragmatism and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, S. and Seidl, D. (2018), ‘New CEOs and their collaborators: divergence and convergence between the strategic leadership constellation and the top management team’, Strategic Management Journal, 39/3: 606–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. (1999), ‘Conditioned emergence: a dissipative structures approach to transformation’, Strategic Management Journal, 20/4: 297–316.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntosh, R., MacLean, D. and Seidl, D. (2010), ‘Unpacking the effectivity paradox of strategy workshops: do strategy workshops produce strategic change?’, in Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., and Vaara, E. (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice: 291–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, S. (2008), ‘Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency’, Journal of Management Studies, 45/2: 294–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, S. and Vaara, E. (2008), ‘On the problem of participation in strategy: a critical discursive perspective’, Organization Science, 19/2: 341–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, W. (2007), ‘Managing knowledge in organization studies through instrumentation’, Organization, 14/1: 123–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezias, S. J. and Regnier, M. O. (2007), ‘Walking the walk as well as talking the talk: replication and the normal science paradigm in strategic management research’, Strategic Organization, 5/3: 283–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (2007), ‘Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research’, Strategic Organization, 5/2: 177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NeelyJr, B. H., Lovelace, J. B., Cowen, A. P. and Hiller, N. J. (2020), ‘Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: verdicts and recommendations for future research’, Journal of Management, 46/6: 1029–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2012), Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, D. and Roos, J. (2007), ‘Beyond text: constructing organizational identity multimodally’, British Journal of Management, 18/4: 342–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J. E. (1996), Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
Oxley, J. E., Rivkin, J. W. and Ryall, M. D. (2010), ‘The strategy research initiative: recognizing and encouraging high-quality research in strategy’, Strategic Organization, 8/4: 377–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelz, D. C. (1978), ‘Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy’, in Yinger, M. J., and Cutler, S. J. (eds), Major Social Issues: A Multidisciplinary View: 346–57. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1993), ‘Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable’, Academy of Management Review, 18/4: 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (2007), ‘A modest proposal: how we might change the process and product of managerial research’, Academy of Management Journal, 50/6: 1334–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Pozzebon, M. (2004), ‘The influence of a structurationist view on strategic management research’, Journal of Management Studies, 41/2: 247–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002), ‘Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5/2: 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (1980), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rouleau, L. (2005), ‘Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: how middle managers interpret and sell change every day’, Journal of Management Studies, 42/7: 1413–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouleau, L. (2013), ‘Strategy-as-practice research at a crossroads’, M@n@gement, 16/5: 574–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouleau, L. and Cloutier, C. (2022), ‘It’s strategy. But is it practice? Desperately seeking social practice in strategy-as-practice research’, Strategic Organization, 20/4: 722–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samba, C., Tabesh, P., Thanos, I. C. and Papadakis, V. M. (2021), ‘Method in the madness? A meta-analysis on the strategic implications of decision comprehensiveness’, Strategic Organization, 19/3: 414–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (eds) (2001), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwarz, M. and Balogun, J. (2007), Strategy Workshops for Strategic Reviews: A Case of Semi-Structured Emergent Dialogues, Working Paper no. 054. London: AIM Research.Google Scholar
Seidl, D. (2007), ‘General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: a systemic-discursive perspective’, Organization Studies, 28/2: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidl, D., MacLean, D. and MacIntosh, R. (2011), ‘Rules of suspension: a rules-based explanation of strategy workshops in strategy process’, paper presented at seventy-first annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, Texas, 15 August.Google Scholar
Skov, M. B., Bjerregaard, T. and Hansen, J. R. (2022), ‘Orchestrating ongoing interaction flows of strategy formation in and between meetings,’ Strategic Organization, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14761270221127881.Google Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T. and Spee, P. (2015), ‘Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice’, Academy of Management Journal, 58/3: 932–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, P. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2011), ‘Strategic planning as communicative process’, Organization Studies, 32/9: 1217–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Splitter, V. and Seidl, D. (2011), ‘Does practice-based research on strategy lead to practically relevant knowledge? Implications of a Bourdieusian perspective’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47/1: 98–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989), ‘Institutional ecology, translations, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39’, Social Studies of Science, 19/3: 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stronz, M. M. (2005), ‘Strategic learning in the context of strategy implementation: a case study of implementers in action’, Doctoral Thesis. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Tavella, E. (2021), ‘The discursive construction of participation: assigning and justifying responsibility in management meetings’, Strategic Organization, 19/4: 579–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, N. A., Verduijn, K. and Gartner, W. B. (2020), ‘Entrepreneurship-as-practice: grounding contemporary theories of practice into entrepreneurship studies’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32/3–4: 247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaara, E. and Langley, A. (2021), ‘Communicative perspectives on strategic organization’, Strategic Organization, 19/4: 541–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaara, E. and Whittington, R. (2012), ‘Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously’, Academy of Management Annals, 6/1: 285–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Aaken, D., Koob, C., Rost, K. and Seid, D. (2013), ‘Ausgestaltung und Erfolg von Strategieworkshops: eine empirische Analyse’, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 65/7: 588–616.Google Scholar
van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (2005), ‘Alternative approaches for studying organizational change’, Organization Studies, 26/9: 1377–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, M. and Koch, J. (2018), ‘Strategy as staged performance: a critical discursive perspective on keynote speeches as a genre of strategic communication’, Strategic Management Journal, 39/3: 639–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006), ‘Completing the practice turn in strategy research’, Organization Studies, 27/5: 613–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R., Jarzabkowski, P., Mayer, M., Mounoud, E., Nahapiet, J. and Rouleau, L. (2003), ‘Taking strategy seriously: responsibility and reform for an important social practice’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12/4: 396–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Gilchrist, A., Mueller, F. and Lenney, P. (2021), ‘The art of stage-craft: a dramaturgical perspective on strategic change’, 19/4: 636–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S. E. and Blettner, D. P. (2013), ‘How useful are the strategic tools we teach in business schools?’, Journal of Management Studies, 50/1: 92–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zald, M. N. (1995), ‘Progress and cumulation in the human sciences after the fall’, Sociological Forum, 10/3: 455–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×