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
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T20:07:21.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - An activity theory approach to strategy as practice

from Part II - Theoretical Resources: Social Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2015

By
Paula Jarzabkowski  and
Carola Wolf
Edited by
Damon Golsorkhi ,
Linda Rouleau ,
David Seidl  and
Eero Vaara
Paula Jarzabkowski
Affiliation:
Cass Business School, City University, London
Carola Wolf
Affiliation:
Aston Business School, Birmingham
Damon Golsorkhi
Affiliation:
Grenoble School of Management
Linda Rouleau
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Eero Vaara
Affiliation:
Svenska Handelshögskolan, Helsinki
Get access

Summary

This chapter introduces activity theory as an approach for studying strategy as practice. Activity theory conceptualizes the ongoing construction of activity as a product of activity systems, comprising the actor, the community with which that actor interacts and those symbolic and material tools that mediate between actors, their community and their pursuit of activity. The focus on the mediating role of tools and cultural artefacts in human activity seems especially promising for advancing the strategy-as-practice agenda, for example as a theoretical resource for the growing interest in sociomateriality and the role of tools and artefacts in (strategy) practice (for example, Balogun et al. 2014; Lanzara 2009; Nicolini 2009; Spee and Jarzabkowski 2009; Stetsenko 2005). Despite its potential, in a recent review Vaara and Whittington (2012) identified only three strategy-as-practice articles explicitly applying an activity theory lens. In the wider area of practice-based studies in organizations, activity theory has been slightly more popular (for example, Blackler 1993; 1995; Blackler, Crump and McDonald 2000; Engeström, Kerosuo and Kajamaa 2007; Groleau 2006; Holt 2008; Miettinen and Virkkunen 2005). It still lags behind its potential, however, primarily because of its origins as a social psychology theory developed in Russia with little initial recognition outside the Russian context, particularly in the area of strategy and organization theory, until recently (Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks and Yanow 2009). This chapter explores activity theory as a resource for studying strategy as practice as it is socially accomplished by individuals in interaction with their wider social group and the artefacts of interaction. In particular, activity theory's focus on actors as social individuals provides a conceptual basis for studying the core question in strategy-as-practice research: what strategy practitioners do.

The chapter is structured in three parts. First, an overview of activity theory is provided. Second, activity theory as a practice-based approach to studying organizational action is introduced and an activity system conceptual framework is developed. Third, the elements of the activity system are explained in more detail and explicitly linked to each of the core SAP concepts: practitioners, practices and praxis. In doing so, links are made to existing strategy-as-practice research, with brief empirical examples of topics that might be addressed using activity theory. Throughout the chapter, we introduce key authors in the development of activity theory and its use in management and adjacent disciplinary fields, as further resources for those wishing to make greater use of activity theory.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice , pp. 165 - 183
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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.)

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
Adler, P. (2005), ‘The evolving object of software development’, Organization, 12/3: 401–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, D., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., and Norman, A. (2013), ‘How should technology-mediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory’, MIS Quarterly, 37/3: 835–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, D., Karanasios, S., and Slavova, M. (2011), ‘Working with activity theory: context, technology, and information behavior’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62/4: 776–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, M. S. (1982), ‘Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action’, British Journal of Sociology, 33/4: 455–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J., Jacobs, C. D., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., and Vaara, E. (2014), ‘Placing strategy discourse in context: sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power’, Journal of Management Studies, 51/2: 175–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P., and Vaara, E. (2011), ‘Selling, resistance and reconciliation: a critical discursive approach to subsidiary role evolution in MNEs’, Journal of International Business, 42/6: 765–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackler, F. (1993), ‘Knowledge and the theory of organizations: organizations as activity systems and the reframing of management’, Journal of Management Studies, 30/6: 863–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackler, F. (1995), ‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation’, Organization Studies, 16/6: 1021–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackler, F., Crump, N., and McDonald, S. (1999), ‘Managing experts and competing through innovation: an activity theoretical analysis’, Organization, 6/1: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackler, F., Crump, N., and McDonald, S. (2000), ‘Organizing processes in complex activity networks’, Organization, 7/2: 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackler, F., and Regan, S. (2009), ‘Intentionality, agency, change: practice theory and management’, Management Learning, 40/2: 161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (1991), ‘Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation’, Organization Science, 2/1: 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1983), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a process study’, Management Science, 29/12: 1349–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1996), ‘A process model of strategic business exit: implications for an evolutionary perspective on strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, 17/S1: 193–214.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W., and Appleyard, M. M. (2007), ‘Open innovation and strategy’, California Management Review, 50/1: 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawe, E. (1970), ‘The two sociologies’, British Journal of Sociology, 21/2: 207–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., and Langley, A. (2001), ‘The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 44/4: 809–37.Google Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., and Rouleau, L. (2007), ‘Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: rethinking theoretical frames’, Human Relations, 60/1: 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rond, M., and Bouchiki, H. (2004), ‘On the dialectics of strategic alliances’, Organization Science, 15/1: 56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987), Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1990), Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1993), ‘Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: the case of primary care medical practice’, in Chaiklin, S., and Lave, J. (eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context: 64–103. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1996), ‘Developmental work research as educational research’, Nordisk Pedagogik: Journal of Nordic Educational Research, 16/5: 131–43.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2000), ‘Activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: a story of four umpires’, Organization, 7/2: 301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2001), ‘Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization’, Journal of Education and Work, 14/1: 133–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., and Blackler, F. (2005), ‘On the life of the object’, Organization, 12/3: 307–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Kerosuo, H., and Kajamaa, A. (2007), ‘Beyond discontinuity: expansive organizational learning remembered’, Management Learning, 38/3: 319–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, M., and Punamäki, R.-L. (eds.) (1999), Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., and Sannino, A. (2011), ‘Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: a methodological framework’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24/3: 368–87.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
Floyd, S. W., and Wooldridge, B. (1992), ‘Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: a research note’, Strategic Management Journal, 13/S1: 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S. W., and Wooldridge, B. (1997), ‘Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance’, Journal of Management Studies, 34/3: 465–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, K. A. (2002), ‘Pursuing an evolving object: a case study in object formation and identification’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9/2: 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frawley, W. (1997), Vygotsky and Cognitive Science: Language and the Unification of the Social and Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherardi, S., and Nicolini, D. (2001) ‘The sociological foundation of organizational learning’, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J., and Nonaka, I. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge: 35–60. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Groleau, C. (2006), ‘One phenomenon, two lenses: understanding collective action from the perspective of coorientation and activity theories’, in Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., and Van Every, E. J. (eds.), Communication as Organizing: 157–180. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., and von Krogh, G. (2011), ‘Social software and strategy’, Long Range Planning, 44/5: 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, H., and Pfaff, C. (2012), ‘An activity-theory analysis of corporate wikis’,Information Technology and People, 25/4: 423–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, D. (2000), ‘A dialogical approach to skill and skilled activity’, Human Relations, 53/7: 957–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. (2008), ‘Using activity theory to understand entrepreneurial opportunity’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15/1: 52–70.Google Scholar
Holzman, L. (2009), Vygotsky at Work and Play. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977), Dialectical Logic: Essays on Its History and Theory. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Ilyenkov, E. V. (1982), The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx's Capital. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C. D., and Heracleous, L. (2007), ‘Strategizing through playful design’, Journal of Business Strategy, 28/4: 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarratt, D., and Stiles, D. (2010), ‘How are methodologies and tools framing managers’ strategizing practice in competitive strategy development?’, British Journal of Management, 21/1: 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkwoski, P. (2003) ‘Strategic practices: an activity theory perspective on continuity and change’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 23–55.Google Scholar
Jarzabkwoski, P. (2004), ‘Strategy-as-practice: recursiveness, adaptation and practices-in-use’, Organization Studies, 25/4: 529–60.Google Scholar
Jarzabkwoski, P. (2005), Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based View. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Jarzabkwoski, P. (2008), ‘Shaping strategy as a structuration process’, Academy of Management Journal, 51/4: 621–50.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., and Balogun, J. (2009), ‘The practice and process of delivering integration through strategic planning’, Journal of Management Studies, 46/8: 1255–88.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., and Fenton, E. (2006), ‘Strategizing and organizing in pluralistic contexts’, Long Range Planning, 39/6: 631–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Giulietti, M., Oliveira, B., and Amoo, N. (2013), ‘“We don't need no education” – or do we? Management education and alumni adoption of strategy tools’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 22/1: 452–72.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., Lê, J., and Van de Ven, A. H. (2013), ‘Responding to competing strategic demands: how organizing, belonging and performing paradoxes co-evolve’, Strategic Organization, 11/3: 245–80.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., and Spee, P. (2009), ‘Strategy-as-practice: a review and future directions for the field’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 11/1: 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., and Whittington, R. (2008), ‘Hard to disagree, mostly’, Strategic Organization, 6/1: 101–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., and Whittington, R. (2007), Strategy as Practice: Research Directions and Resources. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Melin, L., and Whittington, R. (2003), ‘Guest editors’ introduction: micro strategy and strategizing: towards an activity-based view’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaptelinin, V., and Nardi, B. (2006), Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kerosuo, H. (2011), ‘Caught between a rock and a hard place: from individually experienced double binds to collaborative change in surgery’, Journal of Change Management, 24/3: 388–99.Google Scholar
Ketokivi, M., and Castañer, X. (2004), ‘Strategic planning as an integrative device’,Administrative Science Quarterly, 49/3: 337–65.Google Scholar
Kozulin, A. (1999), Vygotsky's Psychology: A Biography of Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google 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
Lanzara, G. F. (2009), ‘Reshaping practice across media: material mediation, medium specificity and practical knowledge in judicial work’, Organization, 30/12: 1369–90.Google Scholar
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leontiev, A. N. (1978), Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lockwood, D. (1964), ‘Social integration and system integration’, in Zollschan, G. K., and Hirsch, H. W. (eds.), Explorations in Social Change: 244–57. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Luk, J. C. M. (2013), ‘Forms of participation and semiotic mediation in board games for second language learning’, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 8/4: 352–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malopinsky, L. (2008), ‘Facilitating organizational change: the use of activity theory as a framework for social construction of strategy knowledge’, unpublished PhD thesis. Indianapolis: Indiana University.
Mantere, S. (2005), ‘Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity’, Strategic Organization, 3/2: 157–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, S. (2008), ‘Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency’, Journal of Management Studies, 45/2: 294–316.Google 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
McCabe, D. (2010), ‘Strategy-as-power: ambiguity, contradiction and the exercise of power in a UK building society’, Organization, 17/2: 151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, R., Paavola, S., and Pohjola, S. (2012), ‘From habituality to change: contribution of activity theory and pragmatism to practice theories’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 42/3: 345–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., and Yanow, D. (2009), ‘Re-turn to practice: an introductory essay’, Organization Studies, 30/12: 1309–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, R., and Virkkunen, J. (2005), ‘Epistemic objects, artifacts and organizational change’, Organization, 12/3: 437–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H., and Waters, J. A. (1985), ‘Of strategies, deliberate and emergent’, Strategic Management Journal, 6/3: 257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardi, B. A. (ed.) (1996a), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nardi, B. A. (1996b), ‘Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition’, in Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction: 69–102. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nardi, B. A. (2005),‘Objects of desire: power and passion in collaborative activity’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12/1: 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2009), ‘Zooming in and out: studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections’, Organization, 30/12: 1391–418.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., and Yanow, D. (eds.) (2003), Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Omicini, A., and Ossowski, S. (2004), ‘Coordination and collaboration activities in cooperative information systems’, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13/1: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002), ‘Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing’, Organization Science, 13/3: 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paroutis, S., and Heracleous, L. (2013), ‘Discourse revisited: dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption’,Strategic Management Journal, 34/8: 935–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prenkert, F. (2006), ‘A theory of organizing informed by activity theory: the locus of paradox, sources of change, and challenge to management’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19/4: 471–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabardel, P., and Beguin, P. (2005), ‘Instrument mediated activity: from subject development to anthropocentric design’, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6/5: 429–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouleau, L., and Balogun, J. (2011), ‘Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence’, Journal of Management Studies, 48/5: 953–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2002), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.) (2001), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sillince, J., Jarzabkowski, P., and Shaw, D. (2012), ‘Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity’, Organization Science, 23/3: 630–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. (2006), ‘Playing to learn: a qualitative analysis of bilingual pupil–pupil talk during board game play’, Language and Education, 20/5: 415–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K. (2014), ‘Dynamic decision making: a model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes’, Academy of Management Journal, 57/6: 1592–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, P., and Jarzabkowski, P. (2009), ‘Strategy tools as boundary objects’, Strategic Organization, 7/2: 223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spender, J.-C. (1995), ‘Organizations are activity systems, not merely systems of thought’, in Shrivastava, P., and Stubbart, C. (eds.), Advances in Strategic Management: Challenges within the Mainstream, vol. B: 153–74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Stetsenko, A. (2005), ‘Activity as object-related: resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12/1: 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., and Ladstätter-Fussenegger, F. (2012), Democratizing strategy: how crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues’, California Management Review, 54/4: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L. (1987), Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., and Lê, J. (2013), ‘Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory’, Strategic Organization, 11/3: 329–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. (1994), The Social Theory of Practices. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Vaara, E., Kleymann, B., and Seristö, H. (2004), ‘Strategies as discursive constructions: the case of airline alliances’, Journal of Management Studies, 41/1: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaara, E., Sorsa, V., and Pälli, P. (2010), ‘On the force potential of strategy texts: a critical discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization’, Organization, 17/6: 685–702.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
Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, K. (2004), ‘Activity systems and conflict resolution in an online professional communication course’, Business Communication Quarterly, 67/2: 182–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, G. (2002), ‘The role of dialogue in activity theory’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9/1: 43–66,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, G. (2007), ‘The mediating role of discoursing in activity’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14/3: 160–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. (1985), Vygotsky and the Social Formation of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. (2003), ‘The work of strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective’, Strategic Organization, 1/1: 119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006), ‘Completing the practice turn in strategy research’, Organization Studies, 27/5: 613–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2014), ‘Information systems strategy and strategy-as-practice: a joint agenda’, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23/1: 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., and Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011), ‘Opening strategy: evolution of a precarious profession’, British Journal of Management, 22/3: 531–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, C., and Floyd, S. W. (forthcoming), ‘Strategic planning research: toward a theory-driven agenda’, Journal of Management.
Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S., 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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
×