Contributions published at Organization and Management (David Seidl)

Over the last decade, strategy-as-practice has emerged as a distinctive approach in strategy research, according to which strategy is conceptualized as something that people do rather than something that firms in their markets have. This interest in doing strategy directs research attention to the myriad of day-to-day micro-level activities that make up the everyday practice of strategy. Yet, at the same time it calls for an appreciation of the role of the macro-level institutions in which these strategizing activities are embedded and which they instantiate: Strategists are not acting in isolation but exist within those regular, socially defined modes of acting that arise from the plural social institutions in which they are embedded and which they construct on a moment-by-moment basis in their actions. The field has therefore increasingly turned its attention to studying the nexus of practitioners, practices and praxis, in which strategy is performed. The research focus is thus on the interaction between practitioners (strategists, broadly defined from middle and top managers to consultants and others, who do the work of strategy), practices (those social and material ‘things’, such as PowerPoint, flipcharts, spreadsheets, tools and concepts, and spaces that are integral to doing strategy) and praxis (the flow of work at multiple levels, in which strategy is performed). Studies may differently foreground or background practitioners, practices and praxis, according to their dominant theoretical and methodological approach and the empirical phenomena of interest. Our series aims to provide insight into these concepts and analytic choices. The objective of the Strategy-as-Practice series of talks is to provide an introduction into this novel approach to strategy and to reveal the particular insights that can be gained by adopting such an approach. Apart from an introductory talk which will elaborate on the legacy of the strategy-as-practice approach and its relation to other areas of strategy research, the series is divided into three main sections: The first section will discuss different theoretical perspectives in strategy-as-practice; the second section will elaborate on the advantages and challenges of different empirical methods in examining strategy practice; the third and most extensive section will address central phenomena in strategy practice, such as strategy meetings, strategy talk, strategy tools, strategic planning etc. Each talk is given by an eminent scholar in the respective field and will include slides and a few recommended readings.

Following the appointment of a new CEO, the post-succession period is critical because it is associated with a high rate of organizational failure (Haveman, 1993) and CEO dismissal (Zhang, 2008). Although studies have shown that the appointment of new CEOs may lead to disruption and instability due to the development of new strategies, policies, norms and interpersonal relationships (Friedman & Saul, 1991; Grusky, 1960; Miller, 1993), the way how these changes and disruptions are actually managed while new CEOs navigating through the post-succession period is still not well understood (Denis, Langley, & Pineault, 2000; Gabarro, 1987; Greiner & Bhambri, 1989). This is because “most past research…has failed to examine what new leaders do” (Miller, 1993: 656), despite a large literature on CEO succession (for reviews see: Giambatista, Rowe, & Riaz, 2005; Kesner & Sebora, 1994). To fill this gap, this project intends to document what practices are adopted for managing the post-succession period, how different practices are patterned over time, and why certain practices and patterns appear under specific contexts.

The comply-or-explain principle is a central element of most codes of corporate governance. Originally put forward by the Cadbury Committee in the UK as a practical means of establishing a code of corporate governance whilst avoiding an inflexible “one size fits all” approach, it has since been incorporated into code regimes around the world. Companies can either comply with code provisions or may explain why they do not comply, i.e., why they deviate from a code provision. Despite its wide application very little is known about the ways in which comply-or-explain is used. In addressing this we employ legitimacy theory by which explanations for deviating can be understood as means of legitimizing the company’s actions. We analyzed the compliance statements and reports of 257 listed companies in the UK and Germany, producing some 715 records of deviation. From this we generated an empirically derived taxonomy of the explanations. In a second order analysis we examine the underlying logic and identify various legitimacy tactics. We discuss the consequences of these legitimacy tactics for code regimes and the implications for policy makers.

Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, this article develops a novel approach to the study of corporate social responsibility (CSR). According to this approach, pro-social activities are conceptualized as social practices that individual managers employ in their efforts to attain social power. Whether such practices are enacted or not depends on (1) the particular features of the social field; (2) the individual managers’ socially shaped dispositions and (3) their stock of different forms of capital. By combining these theoretical concepts, the Bourdieusian approach we develop highlights the interplay between the economic and non-economic motivations that underlie CSR, acknowledging influences both on the micro- and the macro-level, as well as deterministic and voluntaristic aspects of human behaviour.

Using previous findings in leader legitimation research as a theoretical frame- work, this thesis lays focus on the mechanisms which lead to losing and regain- ing of leader legitimacy. Based on a case study of a handball team, in which the coach first lost and later regained his legitimacy, this paper identifies several mechanisms which played a role in the process. On the one side, lacking moti- vation due to routine taking over, the awareness of the existence of alternatives and insufficient procedural justice were identified as the triggers for the loss of legitimacy, in combination with relational effects and poor communication. On the other side, besides the external framing effect of negative experiences, the case study revealed the following mechanisms of regaining legitimacy: Most importantly the foreclosure of déjà vus, along with the empowerment of staff and athletes, the display of faith and managerial support. Moreover, improved social skills, better communication and enhanced procedural justice facilitated the regaining of leader legitimacy.

null

null

Based on a longitudinal case study approach, this paper shows that the legitimation processes of technology diffusion in regulated environments is subject to distinct struggles manifested in different framing contests when several competing technological frames are crafted, are contradictory and attempt at capturing the same resources. We show that technology framing contests increase ambiguity which may in turn spark the need to rely on technology testing in order to bring a resolution of the debate, to lower ambiguity and to provide legitimacy to the purpose and benefits of a technology. Furthermore, we show that when framing contests over diffusion cannot be resolved through legitimate means, institution testing may come into play. This is likely to occur when the cultural-cognitive legitimacy of a technology is believed to have acquired sufficient force to trump regulatory legitimacy.

null

null

null

Based on a longitudinal case study approach, this paper shows that the legitimation processes of technology diffusion in regulated environments is subject to distinct struggles manifested in different framing contests when several competing technological frames are crafted, are contradictory and attempt at capturing the same resources. We show that technology framing contests increase ambiguity which may in turn spark the need to rely on technology testing in order to bring a resolution of the debate, to lower ambiguity and to provide legitimacy to the purpose and benefits of a technology. Furthermore, we show that when framing contests over diffusion cannot be resolved through legitimate means, institution testing may come into play. This is likely to occur when the cultural-cognitive legitimacy of a technology is believed to have acquired sufficient force to trump regulatory legitimacy.

null

null

Based on an extensive review of the existing literature, this paper provides a systematic overview and evaluation of our knowledge regarding the particular processes that characterize the period when a new CEO takes over (the CEO post-succession period). Normally beginning when the new CEO takes office, this period is critical because it is associated with a high rate of organizational failure and CEO dismissal. Despite its decisiveness, our knowledge about this phenomenon is rather scattered and fragmented. Our review suggests that new CEOs typically need to manage two processes: (1) a leader integration process and (2) a strategic change process. Existing studies have already generated some insights into these two processes but we lack an appropriate understanding of the particular interplay between the processes. By tracing an agenda for future research, we call for further investigations into the particular challenges and dynamics characterizing this period.

null

null

null

null